Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Lords amendments considered. Lords amendments: No. 1, in line 4, after "Acts;" insert
to make provision for the control of sex establishments;

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 7.

Mr. Macfarlane: All the amendments are consequential. They arise from amendments on several matters in clause 2 and schedule 3. I refer to the acquisition of land by planning boards in amendment No. 82, and to direct labour organisations in new clause F and clause 37. We shall come to those points later, but I commend the amendments to the House.

Dr. David Clark: I am not sure how the House wishes to discuss the amendments. As the Minister said, there are consequential amendments that relate, in particular, to these almost enabling amendments. We shall be happy to accept the amendments, because they generally improve the Bill, but we have grave reservations about whether they go far enough. Nevertheless, it might be better to deal with the details later, when we discuss those amendments.

Mr. Macfarlane: I made it abundantly clear that Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 7 are essentially consequential to the long title. We shall discuss the more detailed amendments later.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 1

LICENSING OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
Subject to subsection (1A) below,

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11 and 112 to 130.

Mr. Raison: The amendments to clause 1 and schedule 1 can be divided into three groups. The first group—that is, amendments Nos. 8 to 11, 117, 118, 121 to 128 and 130—gives effect to the wish expressed in this House, in Committee and in the other place for some control over pop festivals to be made available to local authorities. Hon. Members will recall that the Government were originally opposed to such controls. Although a number of local authorities already had power under local Acts to license open-air entertainments, they had never, to our knowledge, been used. We knew that where specific power to control pop festivals existed, as opposed to a general power to control open-air entertainments, pop festivals did not take place and this fact made us wonder whether a power in the Bill would be used to ban pop festivals altogether wherever it was adopted. We were also concerned about the practical problems for councils trying to enforce a licensing system. It seemed to us that the festivals in most need of control—the free festivals—would manage to escape it, because they had no readily identifiable organisers and that this would make nonsense of the whole system. Finally, and most importantly, we did not want local authorities to be placed in the invidious position of deciding whether or not to license political meetings which contained music whether the singing of an anthem or a full-scale pop concert such as "Rock against Racism".
We have, however, been persuaded by the evident concern of both Houses and by the details of the very unpleasant effects which pop festivals can have, particularly in a small rural neighbourhood, which have been drawn to our notice by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). The amendments which we introduced in the other place are designed to give councils the minimum control compatible with their needs and wishes and those of the organisers and audiences of pop festivals. Because the permissible controls are limited, we think that they will work: and because the conditions which councils may impose are clearly defined, it should not be possible either for them to apply them in a politically discriminatory fashion or for critics to allege that they have done so.
Turning to the detailed provisions of the amendments, clause 1 introduces the mandatory licensing system for public entertainments which take place indoors. The controls over outdoor entertainments, in contrast, will he discretionary, since there may be no need for them at all. The four amendments to clause 1 enable district councils to adopt the powers in schedule 1 by resolution.
Details of the licensing system for outdoor entertainments are contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of schedule 1. Any musical entertainment which is held wholly or mainly in the open air and at a place on private land and which is not exempted under paragraph 2A(3) of amendment No. 117 comes within the ambit of the licensing system. The list of exemptions is fairly extensive and covers such events as fetes and bazaars, sporting or athletic events, displays, and exhibitions where the problems associated with pop festivals are unlikely to arise.
We have not made a specific exemption for political meetings, however. In general, we do not expect them to take place on private land, so the controls are unlikely to


apply at all. Controls extend only to entertainments which are held on private land, because in practice there are already means of controlling events which take place on land which is not in private ownership. So the march or demonstration which assembles on a common and proceeds along the highway to the town centre can sing and play as much as it likes, as far as this licensing system is concerned.
We are left, therefore, with the political meeting at which at some stage before, between or after the speeches, there is some music. The question is then whether that music amounts to a public entertainment. An anthem such as the Red Flag is clearly not a public entertainment, but there comes a point where an interlude consisting in someone singing protest songs to the audience might be considered a public entertainment. I point out, however, that it might also be considered a public entertainment for the purpose of this schedule if it took place indoors. So what it amounts to is that if the organisers of a political meeting which is held outdoors on private land intend to book a singer or a guitarist to entertain the meeting they may need a licence for exactly the same reasons as apply to the organisers of pop festivals. It does not seem very likely, however, that this will arise.
If, on the other hand, a political organisation intends to hold or sponsor a full-scale pop concert on private land, it must obtain a licence, just as any musical organisation must. This is only fair. From what my hon. Friend the Member for Wells has told me about the Pilton peace festival held recently, I assume that it would be covered by the provision.
The conditions which the licensing authority may impose are limited to four types, covering public safety, public hygiene, access for emergency vehicles and the prevention of unreasonable noise disturbance to persons in the neighbourhood. This enables a council to refuse a licence if it is clear that the organisers of the festival will be unable or unwilling to meet the conditions specified, but does not allow it to prohibit a pop festival just because it does not like them as a class, and it does not allow it to impose conditions which might be seen as politically biased.
The other amendments to clause 1 and schedule 1 are less substantial. Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 require the licensing authority to waive the licensing fee for entertainments held in parish, village or community halls, church and chapel halls or other similar buildings occupied in connection with a place of public religious worship. A good deal of concern was expressed about the possible financial consequences for the trustees of these places if they had to pay fees and the Government and local authority associations eventually agreed to the amendments. In addition, the licensing authority will have discretion to remit fees in whole or part where the entertainment, whenever it is held, is of an educational or like character or given for a charitable or like purpose.
The remainder are drafting amendments. I hope that having explained the new provisions and that, having conveyed the care with which we have approached the question, the House will agree to the amendments.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I welcome all the amendments to which the Minister has now seen fit to

agree. It is extraordinary that we should have spent so much time in Committee arguing the very case that the Minister today expresses so forcefully and eloquently. In Committee the Minister refused to see any logic or sense in the arguments that he now puts to the House. He said then that
the Government take the view that the licensing of pop festivals and other open air events is not justified".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 10 December 1981; c. 5.]
He referred to Baroness Stedman's working group and said that such controls would be virtually impossible to enforce, quite apart from there being no need for them.
No event between the Committee and now could have caused such a drastic change of mind, except the views of the other place. I am worried that the views of the House of Commons do not persuade the Minister, whereas the views of the other place do. There has been a complete turnround in the Minister's attitude. All our arguments are now accepted in the space of five minutes, yet we spent nearly a whole morning trying to persuade the Minister, all to no avail.
One of the amendments provides that no fee shall be needed for an entertainments licence relating to charitable and educational functions. On Report the Minister said:
I see no reason why the licensing authority and, through it, the ratepayers should be forced to subsidise the wealthier charities, particularly when the licence fee may be a tiny fraction of the cost of the entertainment."—[Official Report, 3 February 1982; Vol. 17 c. 499.]
I assume that the Minister still thinks that, but he now comes to the House and accepts the very amendment that we moved without success in the middle of the night on Report. That is the story connected with all the amendments. I hope that in future the Minister will accept the logic expressed in this House instead of being persuaded later by the other place, particularly when no events or facts have emerged to change the argument. That is a waste of both his time and that of the House. The Minister's change of mind is welcome, but why does he not come to his decisions earlier and save both Houses a great of trouble?

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 2

LICENSING OF SEX ESTABLISHMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 2, line 33, leave out "section" and insert "Schedule".

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 131 to 198.

Mr. Raison: Right hon. and hon. Members will probably recall that these provisions were not added to the Bill until Report in this House. There was, accordingly, relatively little opportunity for their detailed scrutiny in this House, and it is not surprising, therefore, that a number of amendments—many of a technical or drafting nature—should have been proposed in another place. I shall not for this reason tire the House with an explanation of every amendment. It would be helpful, however, to speak in some detail to the principal amendments, including that about which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) is concerned.
Most of the amendments of any substance have their origin in comments made in this House when the Government amendments were discussed on Report. That is true, for example, of amendments Nos. 133, 135, 136 and 137. Right hon. and hon. Members who were present on that occasion will recall the concern that was voiced on both sides of the House that the definitions in paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 3, and in particular the references to violence and cruelty, might be thought to imply that Parliament in some way condoned the sale of articles which appeared to encourage sexual violence.
That concern was echoed in another place and it led the Government to table the amendments before the House. Their effect is to remove the references to violence and cruelty in the definitions of "sex cinema", "sex shop" and "sex article", but to retain those to "force" and "restraint". As I explained to the House when introducing these provisions, it is necessary for the definitions to be comprehensive—even perhaps at the cost of giving some offence—if we are to ensure that premises selling the most objectionable material are not, by virtue of that fact, to escape the licensing controls entirely.
However, having considered the matter very carefully, we reached the conclusion that it would be safe to omit the words "violence" and "cruelty", provided that "force" and "restraint" were retained. The term "force" would probably cover adequately most material involving sexual violence or cruelty, with the exception of material depicting voluntary bondage. To ensure that the latter was covered we felt it necessary to retain the term "restraint". It was the general view in another place that this was a satisfactory outcome and I commend the amendments to the House.
Another matter that gave rise to much discussion in the House was whether the provisions would enable a local authority to prohibit sex shops entirely. I explained that the Government did not believe it appropriate, in such a regulatory measure, to provide local authorities with a blanket power to ban those premises from the whole of their area. However distasteful the premises may be, it is not an offence under the general criminal law to operate a sex shop provided, of course, that the Obscene Publications Acts and other relevant legislation are not contravened in doing so. I emphasised, however, that the ground for refusal in paragraph 11(3)(c) of the schedule would enable a local authority to consider what the appropriate number of sex establishments should be in the locality relevant to an application. I went on to say that there was no reason why, on proper consideration of an application, a local authority could not, if it felt justified in doing so, form the opinion that it would be inappropriate to have any sex establishments in the relevant locality. It appeared to be the general view that it would be helpful if it were made clear, on the face of the Bill, that the appropriate number of sex establishments for the purpose of paragraph 11(3)(c) might be nil. That is precisely the effect of amendment No. 159.
Another matter that troubled right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—this brings me to the amendment about which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark is concerned—was the manner in which the appeals procedures might operate. It was argued, especially by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), that, as is said to have happened with betting offices, the views of local authorities and local residents would be

overridden by the courts which, especially in the case of the Crown court, might be less sensitive to local circumstances. I undertook to consider the matter.
Our conclusion, which led us to table in another place amendments Nos. 187 and 189, was that there was a good case for saying that local authorities should have the final say where the considerations involved were of a distinctly local character. We had in mind the matters that might form the grounds for refusal under paragraph 11(3)(c) or (d) of the schedule. They go to the appropriate number of sex establishments in a locality and to such considerations as the character of the locality and the use of other premises in the vicinity. It is not unreasonable to take the view that the local authority, rather than the courts, should have the final say when considering those matters, especially with such a sensitive issue as the location of a sex shop.
I should emphasise that there would continue to be a right of appeal to the magistrates' court and to the Crown court where a refusal is based on the grounds set out in paragraph 11(3)(a) or (b). They relate to the applicant's suitability or the suitability of those on whose behalf he would be managing the premises. In such cases the grounds for refusal do not turn on local circumstances and it seems entirely right that a decision to refuse should be capable of being reviewed by the courts on its merits.
I should also emphasise that the withdrawal of a right of appeal in the case of a decision based on the grounds set out in paragraph 11(3)(c) or (d) could still be challenged by way of judicial review, if there was any reason to believe that it had not been properly reached by the local authority. The local authority would, therefore, be obliged to consider an application scrupulously and could not attempt to take advantage of the absence of a right of appeal in certain circumstances.
I fully appreciate that there may be some—as indeed there were in another place—who may have reservations as a matter of principle about the restriction of rights of appeal proposed in the two amendments. I hope, however, that the House as a whole—I include my hon. Friend the Member for Newark—will feel that this is, on balance, reasonable in what must be regarded as the special circumstances with which the schedule deals.
Some right hon. and hon. Members expressed anxiety when the provisions were introduced about whether the proposed penalties would be adequate in the light of the sums of money that are apparently made from trading in pornography. The Government had proposed that the principal offences under the schedule should be triable summarily only and subject to a maximum penalty of £5,000. I remind the House that this was already an exceptional penalty. No existing, purely summary, offence carries a higher maximum penalty than £1,000. There are a few offences in pollution and fisheries law where magistrates can impose a higher penalty but they are "triable either way" offences which, for reasons of speed, may need to be dealt with in the magistrates' court. In this instance too it seemed to us to be vital that offences should be capable of being prosecuted speedily and that there were no inherent reasons, such as difficulties of proof, why they should not be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily in the magistrates' court. Accordingly we proposed summary offences but with an exceptional maximum penalty that recognised the need to provide a deterrent.
In discussion in the House and in another place it became clear that there was a general feeling that £5,000


was not sufficiently high and that a £10,000 maximum penalty would be more realistic, but nevertheless one that would still be compatible with the offences remaining triable summarily only. We were happy, therefore, to accept amendment No. 172 which proposes such an increase, together with amendment No. 185, which increases the maximum penalty for the obstruction offence from £200 to £1,000.
I now turn to the more important of the technical amendments, if I may so describe them, that are proposed to schedule 3. I can deal briefly with amendments Nos. 131 and 197. It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) that it would be helpful if paragraph 25, which provides an explicit saving for the criminal law, was given greater prominence by moving it to the head of the schedule. The amendments do that and add references to forfeiture and condemnation proceedings under certain legislation. They are necessary because the proceedings are not criminal proceedings and would not otherwise be covered by the paragraph.
Amendment No. 198 serves to make clear the relationship between schedule 3 and the provisions of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) and which is now being considered in another place. The House may recall that I said, in moving the amendments to add schedule 3 to the Bill, that the Government wished to consider whether it was necessary to retain references to sex cinemas since it was the purpose of my hon. Friend's Bill to bring those premises within the cinematograph licensing system. The need to obtain a cinematograph licence would mean that the local authority had complete control over what could be shown, making it unnecessary to subject those premises to the sex establishment licensing arrangements in schedule 3.
As I explained to the House in response to a question from the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) during Report stage of my hon. Friend's Bill, we decided to retain the references to sex cinemas in the schedule in order to act as a "long stop.". We are convinced—I was glad to note that the hon. Lady took the same view—that the most satisfactory means of exercising control over cinematograph exhibitions lies in the well-established cinematograph licensing system. But if exhibitions of pornography are put on in premises that fall outside the scope of that system, the provisions of schedule 3 would be there to fall back on.
It is clearly sensible, from the point of view of the local authorities and everyone else, to avoid an unnecessary overlap. Schedule 3 already provides in paragraph 3(2)(a) that premises issued with a cinematograph licence should not be subject to the requirements of the schedule. The purpose of amendment No. 198 is to deal with what would otherwise be an awkward interval before, as we all hope, my hon. Friend's Bill comes into force. It would not be sensible if local authorities had to consider applications under schedule 3 from premises which, once my hon. Friend's Bill came into force, might be exempted by virtue of having obtained a cinematograph licence. Amendment No. 198 provides that, for sex cinemas, the schedule will not come into force until the day appointed in an order made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend's intention is to bring the provisions into force on the day that my hon. Friend's Bill comes into

force, thus avoiding an awkward interval between the two. I emphasise that this applies only to sex cinemas. The schedule will apply to sex shops immediately on Royal Assent.
10 am
The last group of amendments to which I propose to refer in any detail are the 30 or so concerning vessels or hovercraft. We considered that it might be unwise not to allow for the possibility that some enterprising individual might open up a sex shop on a boat in the local river or harbour. This would be to take advantage of the fact that the schedule originally applied only to a premise, vehicle or stall. I hope that the House will agree that it is sensible to block that potential loophole.
The remaining amendments are minor and mostly of a drafting or technical nature. I hope the House will agree that the amendments that have come from another place serve to strengthen the Bill, and that they will be accepted.

Mr. William Pitt: I welcome Lords amendments Nos. 172 and 185 because one of the principal reasons for the continued establishment of sex shops is that vast sums can be made from them. If the amendments can be put into effect when fines are imposed, they will be effective in reducing the profits of those who are trading illegally. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) will wholeheartedly agree with the amendments dealing with hovercraft.
Lords amendment No. 189 is important because it is related directly to the number of sex shops in a locality. Those who seek to establish sex shops have an effective lobbying presence. Since this issue has been aired in the House I have been lobbied once or twice a week by letter. I have been asked for meetings with at least four or five individuals on the subject of sex shops. A fairly minor part of commerce seems to attract an excessively strong lobby.
Local authorities should have the right to regulate the number of sex establishments in any area. Soho is an example of what happens when there is no ability to regulate. Over the years I have used Soho restaurants frequently. Often when I walk through Soho I do not know where I am because on each occasion another sex establishment has been opened. It is a prime example of the result of untrammelled access to these establishments. I support Lords amendment No. 189 wholeheartedly. I do not think that there should be the right of appeal.
In another debate I illustrated the argument by referring to walk-in bingo parlours. The owners had the right of appeal and because of their financial strength they were able to introduce walk-in bingo parlours against the wishes of many residents. If those who wish to establish sex shops are allowed the right of appeal, they will be able to use their undoubted riches in that way. They would thereby be able to flaunt the wishes of the vast majority in areas where such establishments are not wanted.
These establishments have a place—personally they are not for me—but I suggest that it is probably in the centre of towns rather than in district shopping areas which cater for a different clientele. I welcome all the amendments that provide for increased fines and I welcome especially Lords amendment No. 189.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I shall address my remarks to Lords amendment No. 189. My remarks are not intended to support or oppose the existence or setting up


of sex establishments. I wish to deal with the rightness or otherwise of such establishments to have a right of appeal. If the House were to accept Lords amendment No. 189, a lawful business activity could be refused a licence either because the local planning committee thought that there were enough establishments of that nature or because of the character of the locality in which the premises were situated. It could do so and the owners of the sex establishment would have no right of appeal. My right hon. Friend has said that there is the possibility of the much more complicated procedure of judicial review in a much higher court. However, the general right of appeal that is granted to other similar applicants will be excluded from those who own sex establishments if the amendment is accepted.
I accept the right of local authorities to make a decision either for or against sex establishments or for or against renewal of a licence. However, I do not accept that, because some people find these establishments offensive, they should become the only lawfully permitted activity where there is no appeal against a planning decision. There are other equally unattractive activities—for example, chip shops, knackers' yards and pubs which have licences to permit singing and dancing—and they all have the right of appeal.
Probably in common with most hon. Members, I was not aware of the implications of the proposed amendment until I received representations from a director of the Ann Summers group of shops. Having received those representations and having considered the amendment, I felt that the proposal was against natural justice and I tabled an amendment to it. Surely every applicant should have a right of appeal when his livelihood is at stake.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: If my hon. Friend answers the question that I am about to pose, I think that he will agree that he will in so doing answer the proposition that he has been putting so fairly before the House. Is it an administrative decision by the local authority whether there should be sex shops, any or many, or is it a judicial decision? If it is a quasi-judicial decision, there is no doubt that my hon. Friend's argument is right and that there must be an appeal. However, if it is an administrative decision that is entirely within the concept of the consideration of the councillors of the area, there is no need for an appeal. Surely that is the issue, and I ask my hon. Friend to apply his mind to it.

Mr. Alexander: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that if it is an administrative decision no right of appeal is necessary. However, I put this issue on all fours with an application for a licence to run an amusement arcade, in which event a local authority must exercise its discretion impartially, even judicially, in accordance with criteria laid down under the law. For that reason I suggest that the owners of sex establishments should have the right of appeal. Surely it is appropriate that they have that right. We are not dealing with a purely administrative decision.
When the character of the applicant is at issue there is a right of appeal. I see no great distinction between the character of the applicant and the locality of the business, especially when the business has been perfectly properly carried on without complaint for a number of years. The public might have no complaint but the owner's livelihood, on the expiry of a 12-month licence, could be put in jeopardy following the annual review.
The fact that those establishments may be doing a service to the public is a different argument. It is not part of my argument today. Whether we should have sex establishments in our midst is not the object of the legislation, or it should not be. The object is licensing. However, the amendment seeks to enable the banning of those estalishments on grounds that cannot be challenged in the courts, except for the much more complicated possibility of a judicial review, unlike any other lawful activity. An activity is either lawful or it is not. If it is to become unlawful, let us say so and enact accordingly. If it is lawful, there are no grounds in justice, humanity or logic why that business should suffer a penalty that no other business suffers.
I was a former member and former chairman of a planning committee over many years. This is partly in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). Regrettably, planning committees do not always react impartially, or as impartially as they might, to applications that are before them. Usually they act impartially, but occasionally they do not. I remember one case when I was severely cross-examined by leading counsel. There was an appeal against a refusal by my committee of permission for an amusement arcade in the locality. I was severely cross-examined on the grounds that allegedly I had been motivated by prejudice against that activity. It was right that I was so cross-examined—whether or not there was prejudice on my part is another matter. It is right that in that case we might not have acted as impartially as the law would hope.
Surely, when prejudice and emotion are more likely to be present in a planning committee's mind, an impartial judicial review is essential. A review is appropriate in a magistrates court or a Crown court. In this case, where a review is most needed, it is being denied. This is the only occasion when an appeal would not lie. I quote briefly from the Williams committee, which said about planning authorities:
It seemed to us that the pressure which would be placed on planning authorities when they were considering an application to open a pornography shop were unlikely to be based strictly on planning and amenity grounds.
If we want to ban such establishments, let us say so, but if they are to remain lawful—no one so far is suggesting that they should be unlawful, which is another argument—they are entitled to enjoy the protection of the legal system that other lawful businesses enjoy which is a right of appeal against the refusal of the grant of renewal of their licence and a right to know the grounds on which such a grant or renewal has been refused so that they can appeal. That is elementary justice. Therefore, I disagree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) invites us to regard this kind of business as being on all fours with any other business. The whole consideration of this matter over the years has been to suggest that it is not, in the view of many legislators, a business like any other. That is what justifies the different treatment of that business from the treatment that would apply otherwise. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), when he endeavoured to assist his hon. Friend, invited him to consider whether this kind of decision was an administrative or a judicial decision. I suggest that it only muddles things up to imagine that there


are only two classes of such decisions. There is an infinite spectrum of different gradations of decisions. I do not know whether to define this decision as administrative or judicial. Other factors determine how we should treat it.
10.15 am
Such an application is not like an application for a discretionary improvement grant, when we give total discretion to the local authority to decide "Yea" or "Nay". Nor is it like a case where we set down clear criteria, invite the local authority to say "Yea" or "Nay" on those criteria and give to another authority such as the Minister or the courts an ability to second guess that on appeal according to the same criteria.
Although criteria are linguistically set out in the Bill, the words used are such as to make it an entirely discretionary matter. I am thinking of paragraph 11(3)(c) of schedule 3, which refers to the possibility of limiting numbers. It states that the grounds for refusal are
that the number of sex establishments in the relevant locality at the time the application is made is equal to or exceeds the number which the authority consider is appropriate for that locality".
That opens the door wide to complete discretion in the local authority. It is proper for a local authority, within those words, to consider the views of local residents. If it is proper for it to consider the views of local residents, that is something that a local authority ought to be well placed to judge, but which any appeal body, whether ministerial or judicial, would not be well placed to second guess upon. If we are allowing that consideration to be relevant—we clearly are—that is one reason why it is appropriate in this case that we should not allow any appeal.
However, the House should always be reluctant to do anything of this character without allowing an appeal. I suggest that the House should make a mental note that we should proceed fairly confidently on the basis set out in the Bill and in the Lords amendments, but that we should consider the matter again in the light of experience over a prolonged period simply because it is not a good principle not to have an appeal.
The Minister was necessarily quick in dealing with the amendments. I tried to follow carefully what he said about amendment No. 159, which allows the number of establishments to be set at nil. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the matter further. I thought that the Minister would say that in general and in principle a local authority should not be free simply to decide that it would not have any sex shops in its area but that it would be free, in the light of the circumstances and of the criteria, such as they are set down in schedule 3 paragraph 11, so to decide. It is a nice distinction. It is particularly nice when the criteria contain vaguish words such as
the number which the authority consider is appropriate for that locality.
I ask the Minister to clarify the extent to which a local authority, if the amendments are accepted, is free simply to say that it is not having sex shops in its area.
Let us imagine that as soon as the Bill is passed a local authority says "Right, that is our decision. We are not waiting for applications. We are letting it be known now that we shall not agree to any such applications" I imagine that the authority could not get away with that because the paragraph contains the words:
at the time the application is made".

Secondly, let us say that whenever an application is made the local authority simply announces that it is its policy not to agree to such an application. Could it get away with that?
Finally, if in response to any particular application the authority said that it was not agreeing to it simply because it regarded the number appropriate for that locality as being nil, and always said that in the letter sent to the applicant, could it get away with that?
We need more clarification of the extent to which local authorities will be free to adopt, in effect, a total ban and the manner in which they will have to express their decision to that effect. Otherwise, local authorities might expose themselves to judicial review of this point and we should become tangled up in case law which might in the end have to be sorted out by fresh legislation.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I warmly welcome the amendment. The deliberations in another place have improved this part of the Bill. They have met the objections that some of us expressed at an earlier stage in the Bill's passage through this House when we took the view that a local authority's freedom to carry out its duties and responsibilities in decisions relating to sex establishments might be subject to unusual restriction if it not permitted to decide that a particular area was entirely unsuited for such establishments.
With respect, while I agreed with the tenor of what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) said, I objected strongly to his comment that the ideal place for sex establishments was the centre of cities. That is the last place in which we wish to see such establishments, where they would be in the public eye and an affront to people who do not wish them to be there. If they are to be established anywhere, I would expect them to be in that area of the city in which people might approve such an establishment, but certainly not in the city centres, which are frequented by families with children and people who do not wish to have such establishments glaring at them as they do their daily shopping.
On the proposition that the number of sex establishments may be nil, and on the question of appeals raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), I for one have not the slightest objection to a local authority saying that in its considered view a particular area does not require the provision of any sex shops, provided that the decision is properly taken and becomes the basis of the local authority's policy in dealing with individual applications. I certainly agree that each application must be properly dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the legislation and due care must be taken to ensure that any refusal of an application for the establishment or re-establishment of a sex shop is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. Nothing in that, however, should be taken as suggesting that it would be improper for a local authority to decide that there should be no sex shops in its area. In many parts of the country, there is a desire to keep such establishments out. I believe that that is a perfectly proper view for a local authority to take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark raised an important point when he questioned the moral basis on which an individual may be refused the opportunity to appeal against the decision of a local authority. With respect, however, I felt that he weakened his case when he went on to talk about whether the activities concerned


were legal or illegal. I do not think that a local authority will at any time be considering whether a proposed sex establishment would be legal. The very fact that we have a system of licensing, offensive though it is to some of us, suggests that sex shops of themselves are not illegal. We are here considering the administrative decision as to whether a local authority is prepared to license such an establishment in its area. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, that is not a legal distinction. It is a decision on the administrative implementation of what amounts to a political decision by the local authority. In such cases, I do not think that there can be an appeal to any authority other than the local council which made the original decision. If people do not like it, they will have to change their council to secure a different policy. It would be entirely wrong for a clearly expressed view on this to be subject to a lengthy legal procedure. I shall explain why.
As the House may be aware, one of the major operators of sex shops, Messrs Conegate, has already assured the managers of its shops that if the Bill becomes law it will seek to maintain all of the establishments that it now has by making applications as and when that becomes necessary. It has also assured them that if the applications are refused it will seek to appeal and to use the full process of the law for as long as may be. That is a deliberate intention to spin out the process so that the shops can carry on business for as long as possible, regardless of how offensive they may be to people in their areas.
It is clear that we may have to consider these matters again and again, as the same firm has said that if, when the legal proceedings have been exhausted, the shops are not licensed and are faced with the prospect of closure, it will re-establish each and every one of them as a video centre. We must pay close attention to attempts to get around the licensing system by continually changing the name or description given to an establishment carrying on the types of activity that the Bill seeks to limit.
Therefore, we should be grateful to their Lordships for the amendments that they have made to improve the Bill and the opportunity that will be given to local authorities clearly to express the decisions of people within their areas. I welcome the amendments and I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark will not press his view. If he does, I shall have no doubts at all in seeking to vote against it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander). We must begin by assuming that his arguments, in general, are right and that there should be a right of appeal in respect of judicial proceedings or quasi-judicial proceedings. We have to examine whether the proceedings are of a character which necessiate an appeal or whether they are purely of administrative and only for ministerial or local decision. It is necessary to consider amendment No. 159 regarding the locality.
I pointed out on Report that we would need such an amendment in the other place. One had to consider whether it would be proper for a local authority to conclude that there should be no sex shops in its locality.
The Minister replied that he felt that it would be possible to arrive at a situation in which there were none without the need for an amendment. I argued that, for the sake of clarity and so that there should be no ambiguity, this amendment, tabled in the other place and passed, was appropriate. The amendment states:
Nil may be an appropriate number for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(c) above.
The sub-paragraph states
that the number of sex establishments in the relevant locality at the time the application is made is equal to or exceeds the number which the local authority consider is appropriate for that locality".
This entitles the local authority to say categorically that the answer in its locality is "None". A resolution of the council is required. The decision is open to attack by any member of the public who can argue that it is wrong. I appreciate that few individuals are probably prepared to stand up and say that they challenge the decision and to declare that they feel that there should be a sex shop. However, that resolution must be passed and the council must state with clarity the locality to which it refers. In the Isle of Thanet, there are a number of localities—Birchington, Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate. The Thanet district council covers all four and other areas. The district council would have to give the matter serious consideration and would have to say in which of those localities there would be none. It is true that there is no appeal.
The question that arises is whether it is right that absolute power should be given to a district council to make a decision that should be determined locally by the local people. To give a right of appeal invites the judges to overrule the wishes of the locality and the local authority. Those who argue that there should not be a right of appeal do not say that it is improper to have a right of appeal; the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) was wrong. Their argument is that it is essential to consider who makes the decision. Lawyers refer to it as a list. There is no decision involved that the judges can take without reversing the wishes of the local authority. If the local authority says that there are to be no sex shops, all that can be argued on appeal to a recorder, a judge or any judicial authority is that the decision is wrong.
There are precedents. I give two from experience. One is betting offices. Whether there are too many or too few betting offices has always been left as a general decision for magistrates but subject to appeal. This is the nearest example to the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark has put. It could have been argued that a local authority would say that it was not going to have one betting shop in its locality, but local authorities do not possess that power. It was not given them by the House.
I recall, however, what I advocated, very much against my general background as a lawyer, in respect of gaining. I invited both the present Lord Chancellor and Lord Gardiner to introduce an absolute control on gaming establishments giving a dictatorial right to the Gaming Board without any consideration of appeal. That is much more analogous. The reason was my fear of control by the Mafia or undesirable foreign interests infiltrating gaming


in this country. That would be impossible to control. The same consideration applies to the large and powerful pornography industry.
I am not arguing that there should not be sex shops. In my view, there should be sex shops in some localities and areas which are appropriate. We are, however, dealing with an international trade which is substantially funded and able to infiltrate throughout the whole country. It is much more analogous to the situation in which the Gaming Board has totally autocratic powers. It is partly for that reason, although with some doubt, that I take the view that the local authority should be entitled absolutely to decide whether it wants one or three sex shops or none at all.

Mr. Alexander: Assuming, as my hon. and learned Friend says, that this will be a dictatorial exercise by the local authority, what is the point of the Minister saying that an aggrieved applicant can go for a judicial review?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not think that my right hon. Friend means a judicial review in the sense that the judges would be able to review this matter. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will deal with this matter in his reply. The argument, it seems to me, is that the decision is for the local authority.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: My hon. and learned Friend refers to the dictatorial power of the local authority. One can scarcely call an elected local authority dictatorial in matters that affect local people.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am much indebted to my hon. Friend. I should have picked up that point. The issue of pornography is something about which every member of the public claims a detailed knowledge. Throughout the Isle of Thanet they talk of little else. People know whether they want a sex shop. The matter could be challenged in the council chamber and would no doubt receive wide publicity. It would be canvassed in considerable detail locally. There are some robust local authorities. They may take the view that there should be a sex shop here or there.
There is a difference of attitude in the House as to where, if one allows sex shops, they should be. One cannot ask a recorder or a judge to decide that. It cannot be subject to appeal. The number of betting offices in an area depends upon the locality. There was disagreement this morning between two hon. Members. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West said that they should be in the centre of town, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said that that was the last place they should be. It is for the local authority to decide that issue.
I should have thought that if there were to be a sex shop in Thanet it should be in Margate. I may be wrong; perhaps I should not give that opinion. It is for the local authority to decide. Happily, it is a matter that hon. Members will not have to decide because we should be most unpopular. Is the sex shop to be in the back street or the high street? Is it to be—as Victoria station has it—"Right, as you go out of the station"? Is it to be within the purlieus of Soho and its back streets? I do not know, and it is certainly not a matter for judicial review. It is not an issue to be left to a recorder or judge who will merely ask "What do the local people want? What do they say?".

For those reasons, it is difficult for there to be a right of appeal. That is why I believe that the other place was right to table the amendment which excludes the appeal.
It is contingent upon amendment No. 159 to arrive at the conclusion whether there should be any, and if so how many, sex shops and precisely where they should be.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I arrive at the same conclusion as the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) and largely on the same grounds. A judicial review—this answers the point of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander)—will arise only if it can be shown to the satisfication of the divisional court that the local authority has not considered an application on its merits and has put itself outside the statute by refusing the application on any ground other than those contained in the schedule. Those are the only circumstances in which there can be an appeal against refusal.
I have heard the distinction drawn between administrative and quasi-judicial functions. That may not be helpful in a case such as this, because, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has said, there are considerable gradations. Ultimately—I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West—one has to decide whether in all the circumstances it is a decision that should properly be made by the elected members of a locality. A magistrate or a Crown court judge is less fitted to decide that issue. The ultimate sanction is that of the local electors rather than that of a judicial individual who will manifestly not have the same expertise as members of the local authority who are elected to express the collective view of local people on issues of this nature. They have to face the electorate from time to time, and the electorate will be able to express their feelings if they feel that the local authority has not represented their views properly.
I do not arrive at my view on the ground—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths)—that delays would result from judicial proceedings. Conegate Ltd. has said that it will exhaust to the full the right of appeal, both to magistrates' courts and Crown courts, and keep its establishments open. That would be its right if there were an appeal procedure. Nor is it on the ground—as mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West—that sex shops are analogous to gaming establishments in some respects because they are different in kind from the precedents cited by the hon. Member for Newark of other nonconforming users—like knackers' yards, and so on. The Mafia is not likely to move into knackers' yards. The Mafia is active in the gaming world and we must be vigilant. Individuals of doubtful reputation have moved into the business of sex shops and will continue to do so.
I was amused, as many hon. Members may have been, to see the letter from Conegate Ltd. One knows the reputation of at least one of its directors. The antecedents of a director of Ann Summers are known. In a desperate search for respectability Conegate Ltd. tells its retailers that it has as chairman of its board a member of the other place—[HON. MEMBERS: "A Liberal."] I was not proposing to make a party point. I come from a more puritanical brand of Welsh nonconformity and do not have the liberality that is seen elsewhere. Conegate Ltd. has not only a chairman who comes from the other place in ermine who adds a certain respectability to the company, but is


hoping to have a retired prison governor and a medical practitioner on the board. As the ultimate accolade, Conegate Ltd. might say that the company was trying to obtain the services of a bishop. One knows that there are a number of bishops of the established Church who appear to be trendy in their thoughts on such issues and who may lend themselves to this type of establishment.
10.45 am
I do not for the purpose of this speech oppose sex shops on the grounds of the rather sleazy and unwholesome background of some of the people concerned, and the vigilance that people would need to show to keep them at bay. As has been stated by other hon. Members, it is our view that it is essentially a matter for local decision by the locally elected representatives who can best express the collective view of their electorate. Although the House will be slow to refuse a right of appeal, this is one case where such a right should not be allowed.
As to whether a local authority can have a general policy to exclude sex establishments completely from its area, I should be grateful if the Minister will clarify the points raised by both the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West relating to a local authority's ability to decide upon a complete ban. I understand that it would be improper on the basis of the relevant part of the clause for a local authority to determine that, come what may, it would have a complete ban in the area that it covered. If the local authority goes through the proper forms, that end can be achieved by other means. If the local authority regarded each locality separately, that could be achieved. I seek the Minister's guidance on the definition of a locality for those purposes.
If a local authority were, for each locality within its area, having examined applications on their merits, to decide that it would not allow that particular sex shop, or sex shops in general, in that locality, it could reach a complete ban. Will the Minister confirm that that is the Home Office interpretation?

Dr. Summerskill: I congratulate the Minister on agreeing that the words "violence or cruelty" should be deleted. On Report he said that to exclude the words would be illogical, that they were needed for technical reasons and that they filled in the picture and gave detail that was necessary if the provision were to work effectively. I am glad that he has now decided to the contrary. I am sure that the vast majority of the House will support that. By licensing articles associated with or intended for violence or cruelty, the House would be condoning and legitimising their sale. In an Act of Parliament we should not encourage violence or cruelty.
Amendment No. 159 has led to anxiety. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), their Lordships and others have asked for further clarification. It is a general wish that a local authority can say that it will have no sex establishments in its area. If it has one or two it should be able to say that it wants no more; if it has none, to continue to have none.
I am sorry to keep harking back to what the Minister has said, but we do not know what he might say. On Report he said that the licensing scheme was deliberately directed at the suitability of applicants and premises. He accused those of us who were trying to include the provision in the Bill of tackling the problem by the back door.
In another place an amendment was tabled to permit a local authority to resolve that sex establishments should not be permitted in its area. The Government opposed that. They did not like the amendment. The Government amendment refers to "locality" and not "area". The term means the locality in which the premises are situated. Does "locality" mean the same as a local authority's total area? The Government said in the other place that their amendment would enable licensing authorities to reach the same conclusion in the end as a total veto. Why did they not accept the amendment referring to a local authority's total area? "The relevant locality" implies the neighbourhood immediately around the premises of a sex establishment and not the whole local authority area. The House would like to enable a local authority to say that there should be no sex establishments in its whole area. There is ambiguity about the Government amendment. Their Lordships believe that it still does not express what is generally wanted.

Mr. George Cunningham: In so far as the hon. Lady is going after the definition of "relevant locality" as against a number, is it not clear that if a local authority were defining a relevant locality for the purposes of paragraph 11(3)(d) it might have to establish that there was some common characteristic about the relevant locality and that might mean that it could not regard the whole of its area as the relevant locality for paragraph 11(3)(d)? But for paragraph 11(3)(c) there is no reason at all why it should not regard the whole of its area as the relevant locality, because there is no characteristic built into paragraph 11(3)(c) which the area has to have in common.

Dr. Summerskill: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
It is for the Minister to explain what the Lords amendment will mean in practice. I hope that he will explain why the term "area" was rejected and "locality" was preferred, with the much more restricted meaning that it appears to have. It is important that what the term is intended to mean is what the House wishes—that a local authority can say that in the whole of its area it can veto the establishment of sex shops.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Under the Bill, assuming there are four major localities—Margate, Broadstairs, Ramsgate and one other—the authority would have to state each in turn as being a locality that should not have sex shops. Is that not preferable? The term "local authority area" may mean that local representatives will not give the matter the same consideration.

Dr. Summerskill: There is an argument for each little area to be considered separately, but on Report the House took the view that the whole local authority area should be considered as one by the elected councillors.
I doubt whether we shall vote on the issue. The term "locality" will be used. But I wish to know how the Government see the term operating and whether it will meet the wishes of the House, which were repeated forcefully on Report, and which the other place endorsed.
I welcome the fact that the fine has been raised to £10,000 and that it is now considered appropriate to deal with the cases in magistrates courts. However, I do not believe that the fine is sufficient to deter sex establishment operators. The report by Mr. Patrick Sergeant, the city editor of the Daily Mail, quoted a man described as the highest paid company chairman in Britain, who drew


£325,000 salary last year from a chain of sex shops which earned £2 million. Someone like that would be prepared to pay £10,000 fine in order to continue his lucrative trade, and such a fine would not deter others from starting up in the trade.
The appeal procedure has been fully debated and I agree with the several hon. Members who have pointed out that the legislation is new—

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday Sittings).

Orders of the Day — ASLEF (Rail Dispute)

11 am

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the further threatened strike on British Rail and Government measures to help rail users.
The House will have shared the general relief that the delegate conference of the NUR overturned the decision of its executive to call strikes on both British Rail and London Underground. But this good sense has been overtaken by the decision of the executive of ASLEF, the train drivers, to call an indefinite national strike from tomorrow night.
The ASLEF executive's ground for this action is that it refuses to operate British Railways Board's plans for more flexible working hours or rosters, on which there have been extensive consultations, including a tribunal award, and which have already been accepted by railway guards and their union and implemented by four-fifths of them.
Unless there are last minute wiser thoughts, ASLEF is now embarking on the most pointless national strike called by a trade union in half a century. Unless the strike is called off, it will again bleed away vital railway funds needed for modernisation, as it did in January and February of this year, and it will further worsen the pay prospects for all others in the industry. The railway system will be forced to contract. Many associated industries supplying equipment will be hurt. Many more railway jobs will be lost, as will many wage packets. A strike will also harm other industries and the jobs of those working in them.
The British Railways Board has done all that is reasonable, and more, to understand drivers' worries and to introduce new flexible hours with all necessary safeguards, but without consulting its members the ASLEF executive responded by calling an all-out strike.
Faced with that ugly prospect the Government will again take all possible measures to minimise the grievous difficulties for commuters and to protect the public. The police will again make substantial extra car parking spaces available, including 3,000 extra spaces in Hyde park and Regents park. Clearways will be kept free. Roadworks will be postponed wherever possible. However, as London Transport will be operating, normal parking restrictions will apply. It will be vital for hours to be staggered and, above all, for cars and journeys to be shared. There are no legal or insurance obstacles to car-sharing, so let every car travel full.
It is not too late for the many engine drivers who normally serve the public well to see that they are being grievously misled by their executive. They will do great harm to their own members' livelihoods, as well as to those of many others and to the railway itself. Much their wisest course is to call off the strike and accept the introduction of flexible rostering arrangements. This they should now do.

Mr. Albert Booth: Is the Secretary of State aware that on 30 June ASLEF made a proposal to the BRB that if the board would call off its unilateral implementation of flexible rosters on Sunday night the union executive would recall its conference as


speedily as possible and seek from it authority to co-operate in experiments on productivity improvements and flexible rostering which would be carried out on the basis of experiments in a substantial geographical area proposed by ASLEF to review work allocation, to concentrate more work into programmes, to link rosters so that savings could be achieved to cover the introduction of the 39-hour week at a minimal cost and to produce productivity improvements that would match the board's own flexible rostering proposals?
ASLEF also proposed that, concurrently with that, it would go along with the board's proposal to cover a substantial geographical area on the basis of the board's interpretation of the rostering proposals of the Railway Staff National Tribunal's decision No. 77 and would agree with the board that both parties should give a fair and reasonable trial to the experiments, without prejudice to any existing agreements.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement appears to take no account of that very substantial and significant move, which offers an opportunity to resolve, by a desirable agreement, what has undoubtedly been an extremely difficult industrial relations issue for the board?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman appear to be encouraging the board in refusing to negotiate with ASLEF on that basis, while the strike threat is on, when he knows that the Railway Staff National Council met last week to discuss the NUR position when that union had a strike threat on? Does that not suggest that there is more than a hint of dual standards being applied in the Secretary of State's approach? For example, why is the right hon. Gentleman talking to the chairman of the board about the dispute, but not talking to ASLEF? A degree of evenhandedness would not come amiss.
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, as a matter of extreme urgency, to urge the board to take up ASLEF's offer and to put it to the test, because I believe that that would lead to the calling off of the strike and the averting of massive inconvenience to thousands of passengers?

Mr. Howell: The significant event that the right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention was ASLEF executive's decision on Tuesday night to call an all-out national strike. The most significant event that is needed now, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to try to bring it about, even at this late stage, is for the ASLEF executive to call off the strike and to agree to the introduction of flexible rosters.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the board has been ready to discuss how the flexible rosters should be introduced, but the first requirement is for the ASLEF executive to call off the strike and to agree to the introduction of flexible rosters. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that further discussions are needed on whether those rosters should be introduced, I have to remind him that promises were made last August that they would be brought in, there was a target date in October, an inquiry in February, a tribunal award for the board in May, and notice was given to the union in June for introduction in July. No one can say that there has been a lack of time for the introduction of flexible rosters or for discussions on how they should be introduced.
All that the ASLEF executive has to do now is to reverse the strike call of Tuesday 29 June and agree to the

introduction of flexible rosters. The board has made it absolutely clear that if the union will do that it will he ready to discuss details of how it should be done.
I understand that ACAS is still in touch with the parties, and if ASLEF will follow the course which I believe would be wise for all its members the opportunities for discussing how flexible rosters should be introduced are open to it. But the first requirement is to call off the strike.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions until 11.30 am.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Does my right hon. Friend share my anxiety that there are many marginal branch lines in our constituencies—the Matlock to Derby line is only one example—which, I greatly fear, will never reopen if they shut on Sunday? Will he join me in urging railwaymen on those branch lines to ignore the strike?

Mr. Howell: I certainly join my hon. Friend in that. It is the Government's view, and my view, that there is no wish to see any substantial reduction on the nation's railway network. It would be a tragedy if, as a result of the sort of action that is threatened, decisions were forced which could lead to the outome that my hon. Friend fears.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following Sir Peter Parker's exhortations to railwaymen to give flexible rostering a try, the ASLEF executive has now agreed to seek authority to participate in precisely such an experiment? Is he aware that, despite that major concession on the part of ASLEF, the BRB has already sent out notices to at least 30 major depots throughout the country stating that from 4 July it will impose flexible rostering on train crews? Is he aware that ASLEF has said that if that imposition is withdrawn the strike can also be withdrawn?
When so much is being offered by ASLEF in the dispute—more than has been offered by other unions in similar disputes—why do the BRB and the Government persist in the deliberate intention to take on ASLEF and provoke a bitter industrial conflict? Will the Secretary of State, even now, see Sir Peter Parker once more and urge him to take up ASLEF's genuine offer?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member mentions what other unions have offered in disputes. What other unions have done—including the major railway union, the NUR—is to lift their strike threat. As the hon. Member has influence in this area, would he not be more wisely employed in seeking to persuade the ASLEF executive, first and foremost, to withdraw the all-out strike decision that it made on Tuesday night and to accept the introduction of flexible rosters? It is not a matter that can be said to have been rushed prematurely, because it has been discussed for an interminable period. The method of introducing the rosters could then be discussed between ASLEF and the BRB. That is the course that the ASLEF executive would be wise to pursue. It would be in line with the wisdom shown by other unions in similar circumstances. I hope that the hon. Member will recommend that course to the ASLEF executive.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the travelling public are absolutely exasperated with ASLEF and all its works—perhaps I


should say "non-works"—but that the public will probably stick it out if they have a reasonable belief that their miseries will lead to a better train system in the future?
As certain ASLEF members are involved in the London Transport system, can my right hon. Friend say what the effect might be on London Transport, which has already suffered enormously through the incompetence of the GLC?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is correct in what he says. It can also be said that there will be no better railway if the work practices of 1919 are persisted with and if there is a failure to accept the introduction, one way or another, of flexible rosters. That must be accepted, and I believe that the ASLEF executive would be wise to recognise it and to lift its strike threat.
There is no prospect at present of a renewal of the industrial relations problems that were experienced last week on London Transport. I understand that London Transport is working normally and is likely to continue to do so.

Dr. David Owen: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people think that the Government are right not to intervene and that it is reasonable for the BRB to insist that ASLEF withdraws its strike threat? There have been too many cases recently in which progress has been blocked because of the persistent use of the threat of strike action.
Will the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about the introduction of postal ballots for the election of union executive officers? Can there be any doubt that if the ASLEF executive had been elected by the members on a secret ballot it would not be acting in this utterly irresponsible way?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support, as the BRB will be. I believe that the board is pursuing sensible and reasonable paths in order to get the productivity that is needed, and that it deserves the support of all those who want to see a better railway.
The ASLEF executive now has the power—and, indeed, the facilities—to conduct a ballot and can do so at public expense, but it has chosen not to do so. One has to make the necessary deduction from that decision. The ASLEF executive decided to call the strike without a ballot and without checking with the members.

Mr. John Major: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that flexible rostering is the common practice in most European railway networks and that it has already been accepted in Britain by the NUR?
If the strike takes place, will it not cost many railwaymen—and possibly many people in industry—their jobs? In those circumstances, should not ASLEF withdraw its strike threat immediately? Would it not help if, just for once, Her Majesty's Opposition offered their support to the railway network and the travelling public rather than to people taking militant action?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that flexible rostering and variable hours are now operated on every European railway network except one. The NUR has accepted the principle and, indeed, the practice of flexible

rosters. Four-fifths of the NUR guards are now either operating or are ready to operate flexible rosters, and that has produced extra pay for them. I understand that there is a more satisfactory working pattern, to the benefit of the railways and the railwaymen. ASLEF would do well to follow that lesson.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister began his statement by complimenting the NUR conference on its good sense earlier this week and the NUR on its position concerning flexible rostering. What can he say about rewarding that good sense and safeguarding the bulk of the industry in the current troubles?

Mr. Howell: As I mentioned in my last reply, the NUR guards received extra pay for working the flexible rosters. That is on top of the extra 3 per cent. that they received for undertaking to implement a wide range of productivity agreements. One has been implemented, but the others have not yet been implemented. I understand that they are to be the subject of further discussion. There has been a reference to the Railway Staff National Tribunal, and it will be for the NUR to see how it can implement its productivity promises of last year, for which it received the two layers of extra pay that I have described.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Matlock to Derby line, already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), was running throughout the NUR strike last week, and that it is very sad that the jobs of sound and sensible people such as these should be threatened by the narrow-mindedness and rigidity of ASLEF?

Mr. Howell: I note and agree with what my hon. Friend says about the ASLEF executive, because I happen to believe that there are a great many dedicated engine drivers and railwaymen in ASLEF and the NUR who are appalled at the course on which the ASLEF executive is now set.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the Secretary of State accept that the House—and, indeed, my constituency and the railway yards at March—will be grateful to him for mentioning that the vast majority of honourable members of ASLEF are violently opposed to the strike?
Will the Secretary of State spell out even more clearly the long-term danger to the branch lines in East Anglia, in Northern Scotland and in other parts of Britain?
Will the Secretary of State consider bringing in some interim legislation so that when we have another rail strike people will not spend the whole day telling each other how they got to work?

Mr. Howell: I think that I shall need time for further reflection on the hon. Gentleman's last remark, but he is right to emphasise the very heavy cost that will fall on the railway industry as a result of further and prolonged strike action. We have seen what happened earlier in the year, when over £80 million, which could have been used for much better things for the railway industry and its customers, went down the drain as a result of protracted and unnecessary strikes over the same issue. That is now threatened again. I repeat that this will be one of the most pointless strikes in living memory, and I urge anyone with


an influence on the ASLEF executive to bring it to bear before that executive inflicts permanent damage on its members and many others on the railways.

Miss Janet Fookes: Is there any good reason why women should not be trained as train drivers? It seems to me that they would not be as stupid as the men.

Mr. Howell: I understand that there are 12,000 women in the employ of British Rail, and I believe that there could well be good reasons why women should be trained as train drivers. It is a point worth considering.

Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that, from all the contact that Opposition Members have had with working train drivers in depots, there is no question but that the anxieties and fears about flexible rostering which the ASLEF executive articulates are shared by drivers on the ground and that, notwithstanding those anxieties and fears, the decision of the ASLEF executive yesterday represents a major shift in its position towards reaching an accommodation with the British Railways Board and towards meeting the offer which the board made to it on 26 June to accept dual experimentation? In view of that, is it not plain that even at this late stage the Secretary of State ought to urge both sides in the dispute to seek to reach an agreement on the basis of what the board offered on 26 June and what the ASLEF executive sensibly responded to yesterday?

Mr. Howell: Of course there are anxieties, as there are in any industry about changes in work practices, but what has occurred with National Union of Railwaymen guards, namely, that they have found the new practices acceptable and a positive benefit, is news that has spread and could be spread further to many ASLEF drivers. They will discover that some of their fears about the unacceptability of moving from the sacroscant 8-hour day are completely unfounded.
The British Railways Board has gone to considerable lengths to propose safeguards and to introduce the flexible rosters sensitively. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says that there has been a major shift in the ASLEF position. The best reflection of that major shift would be to lift the all-out national strike call that was imposed, without consulting its members, on Tuesday night, to agree to the introduction of flexible rosters—that would reflect the major shift which the hon. Gentleman says has taken place—and for the railways to proceed on a happier path.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Notwithstanding what the Oppositon have said this morning, does my right hon. Friend accept that the travelling public are heartily sick of the attitude of ASLEF in this matter, believing it to have had ample time to come to a sensible solution long before now? If hon. Members on both sides of the House are correct in their assumption that the vast majority of railwaymen do not want this strike, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the jobs of those who are prepared to put the transport network in jeopardy could easily be filled by people with no more than six weeks' training—which might give us an opportunity to introduce some of the ladies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes)?

Mr. Howell: There is no doubt that the public have shown great patience and fortitude, especially in the face

of the strikes in January and February on the same issue. They rightly feel that this misery and inconvenience is being imposed on them for no good reason, that the ASLEF strike should be called off, and that the flexible rosters which have been discussed for many months and agreed by the machinery of the industry should now be introduced.
I believe that the right approach is for the board and for all those with influence on the ASLEF to say, as was said by the country to the NUR, that the sensible course is to go back to work, to operate the railway system and to let the board and the unions concerned discuss how to introduce the new rosters which have been recommended by the tribunal. I think that that is the sensible way to handle the matter.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Does the Secretary of State agree that the decision by the ASLEF leadership reflects a decision by the ASLEF conference and, therefore, by ASLEF members? Does he also agree that if the British Rail proposals are forced through, we are talking about a maximum saving of £9 million a year, which is pretty small compared with the total British Rail budget? Above all, is not the ASLEF suggestion of experiments in a couple of areas the best way forward? If the Secretary of State really wants to avert the strike, why does he not bring his pressure to bear on the British Rail management to agree with the ASLEF suggestion?

Mr. Howell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the first requirement must be for the strike decision taken by the ASLEF executive to be lifted. The British Railways Board has made it quite clear that if the strike threat is lifted and agreement is reached about the introduction of flexible rosters, the board is ready to discuss how they should be introduced. Obviously it is better that they be introduced by mutual agreeement rather than the board being in a position, as it is now, where it has warned that it will impose them on 4 July and intends to do so.
I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is seriously arguing that the discussion of how flexible rosters should be introduced should proceed under the threat of a national strike called by the ASLEF executive, apparently without consulting its members. He says that the executive's decision reflects the view of ASLEF members. I do not see how it can know that it does, because apparently it has not taken any soundings on the desirability of the strike. I believe that if the executive consulted its members it would find enthusiasm for the strike, with the consequences that would follow, very much more muted than some hon. Members suggest.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Does not my right hon. Friend put his finger on the problem when he points out that the members of ASLEF have not been consulted? Did not last year's ASLEF strike cost £100 million in revenues to the railways? Before the executive goes ahead with this strike, which in my view it should call off at once, should it not consult its members by secret ballot so that that very sensible body of men—the individual train drivers—can express their view on this strike, which will be so damaging to their industry?

Mr. Howell: I believe that it would be wise for the ASLEF executive to follow that course. I also believe that it was profoundly unwise of it to call the strike that it did


on Tuesday night. Therefore, the hopes for wise action following that unwisdom must be limited. But I believe that even at this late stage the executive should follow the course suggested by my hon. and learned Friend. It would be even better if it reversed that intemperate decision to call a national strike, because that is in no one's interests, least of all those of its members.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that of the eight hours that rail drivers work only two are spent actually driving trains?

Mr. Les Huckfield: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the rigidities of the present system make rail drivers travel long distances to sign on, thus inconveniencing the drivers themselves?

Mr. Howell: It is true that it is a very old-fashioned system and that the actual driving time is on average about 3 hours 20 minutes, although obviously other time is required to prepare for the driving, and occasional breaks are also needed. Nevertheless, the actual driving time is very much less than eight hours—I believe that it is about five hours in all. It is a very rigid system. It has been abandoned by almost every modern railway system in the world. The system of more flexible hours has great benefits and will bring a shorter working week of 39 hours to the drivers. It is in their interests in every way to cooperate in the introduction of flexible rosters.

Mr. Richard Alexander: As the ASLEF executive has had several months in which to engage in constructive talks about productivity, is it not a hollow offer that it makes now to engage in an experiment? Since there has been no consultation with the union's members, does it not follow that this industry is being harmed beyond belief by people who have no mandate for their action?

Mr. Howell: It is very late in the day to talk about and to propose a major shift of attitude. But if there has been a major shift—and I shall welcome it if there has been—the best way for that to manifest itself is for the ASLEF executive to lift its strike threat, to agree to the introduction of flexible rosters and to show that its attitide has changed and that this major shift has occurred.

Mr. Roger Moate: Should we not remind the Opposition of something about which the public are quite clear, namely, that flexible rostering has been discussed and negotiated ad nauseam and that even the McCarthy tribunal said that the introduction of flexible rostering was essential to the future of the railways? Does not the threatened loss of revenue to British Rail clearly show that the ASLEF executive is threatening its members' jobs, the future of many branch lines and the railway industry's future investment programme?

Mr. Howell: I hope that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) will use his authority and that of his colleagues to bring home to the ASLEF executive the message that my hon. Friend has put so clearly. There is no reason why anyone who is genuinely concerned about the health of our railway system and the workers in the industry should hesitate or hang back from clearly telling the ASLEF executive that it is set on a

catastrophic course that will damage the whole railway and that it should reverse that course by calling off the strike action and accepting the introduction of flexible rosters.

Mr. Booth: When the Secretary of State said that it would be wrong to go ahead with negotiations on the experiments under the threat of a strike, did he not reveal his complete misunderstanding of ASLEF's proposal? The right hon. Gentleman should be able to understand that ASLEF proposes that the threat of the strike should be lifted while negotiations take place on the proposal by the BRB that two experiments should be conducted concurrently. Is it not silly for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of the "interminable" length of negotiations when the board's proposal to deal with the matter in that way was made to the three union general secretaries only on 26 June? ASLEF's response was made on 30 June, only four days later. That is not an "interminable" length of time and the right hon. Gentleman should adopt a different word.
If the Secretary of State approved of the decision taken this week by the NUR conference and believed it to be correct, should he not at least open his mind to the idea that ASLEF should be allowed to put the proposition made by the president and the general secretary to the conference as soon as it can be reconvened? The right hon. Gentleman will then have a clearer understanding of ASLEF's views and of its members' willingness to co-operate in sensible arrangements for the introduction of rostering. The issue is extremely difficult and complex and rostering requires men to start at all hours of the day. The right hon. Gentleman should understand ASLEF's members' reluctance to give up their guarantee of an eight-hour day.

Mr. Howell: I have always made it clear that both the Government and the board fully understand the problems and the sensitivities involved in changing working practices, despite the fact that those changes are desirable and have been made by almost every other railway system in the world. The proposals that I understand that British Rail made on 26 June were met not by the response that the right hon. Gentleman described, but by the threat last Tuesday night of an all-out strike. That was the ASLEF executive's response. It is in the hands of the ASLEF executive to reverse the brutal response that it made on Tuesday night for an all-out national strike.
Let ASLEF reverse that brutal response, call off the strike and agree to the introduction of flexible rosters. If it were to do that, it might well provide the basis upon which the British Railways Board can work out with the executive exactly how the rosters should be introduced, in line with last August's promises, the inquiry in February, the railway tribunal's award to the board in May and the notice given in June that the rosters would be introduced in July. This is the opportunity that the ASLEF executive has to make a better response than the one it gave to British Rail's very constructive proposals.

Mr. Speaker: We now return to the consideration of Lords amendments.

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When we reach the end of the time limit on a statement and only one or two hon. Members are still rising in their places, could you not be flexible? I represent many commuters who will have to get up from 4 am onwards to travel to London and elsewhere as a result of the strike. So far, I have been unable to represent the great anger and distress that they feel about the strike.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry for those hon. Members who have not been called and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's request for more flexibility. However, if I am too flexible we shall not return to the main business before the House. I have to try to hold the balance and the Minister has been asked a fair number of questions today.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Dr. Summerskill: Before the statement, I was referring to Lords amendments Nos. 187 and 189, which relate to the right of appeal. As has been said, the Bill deals with a new situation and with the licensing of a unique type of shop. It cannot be compared with any other licensing, such as the licensing of betting shops, or with planning permission or improvement grants. Therefore, this issue must be considered quite separately.
I am concerned more with the right of appeal by a shop in existence than with the refusal to create a shop. In the case of a shop that exists, I am not very worried about its owner. He is in a lucrative business and could no doubt move to another area in which the local authority was willing to allow him to set up shop. The owner could easily find some authority to give him a licence. However, I am worried about those who work in the shop and who are not getting a proportion of the owner's profits. The worker would be earning an ordinary wage.
A point of principle is also involved. The House should not take away a right of appeal without giving the matter careful consideration. However, we are clearly dealing with people who will be vigilant over their right of appeal. Conegate Limited sent a letter to its staff saying:
all is not lost—we can appeal to the Magistrates Court, and if we lose there, to the Crown Court—and all this time, an existing shop can continue to trade.
Obviously the company will use the power of delay in the appeal system and the shop will continue to operate, possibly against the local authority's wishes. The local authority may say that it does not want any such establishment in the area, yet the shop will continue to trade while the appeal procedure takes place.

Mr. Anderson: Was my hon. Friend impressed by the passage in the letter which, in an attempt to reassure retailers, stated that their licence applications would be
works of art—drafted by the finest brains in the country and presented by the best solicitors"?

Dr. Summerskill: I hope that the Minister has seen the document, because it shows the determination of sex shop owners to continue in their highly lucrative trade. They are trading not to provide a public service, but to make money. As has been said, Earl Grey has been appointed. There was some shyness about giving the Earl's name, but I am sure that he would not be ashamed of everyone knowing that he is the chairman of the board. The document states:
soon we hope to appoint a doctor and a former prison governor. These moves improve the public image of the company, and enhance our standing with councils—so we will look (and in reality be) the ideal company to be allocated licences in all towns/ cities where we have shops".
It is clear from that that there will be a concerted effort to use the appeal procedure in the most ruthless way to keep sex shops in an area where a local authority may have said emphatically "We do not want any at all".
On balance, I believe that we should agree to the amendment, subject to careful review of how it operates. Taking away the right of appeal is a serious step. I hope that the Minister will undertake that the Home Office will keep the matter under review. Legislation such as this, the


Cinematograph Bill and the Indecent Displays (Control) Bill, takes us into a new sphere. We do not know how it will operate, so it is important to keep it under constant and vigilant review.

Mr. Raison: I wish to clear up an issue relating to the previous debate on pop festivals. I referred to a recent pop festival at Pilton. There is some uncertainty about what I said. I intended to say that in the light of what I heard about that festival I believed that it would have been subject to licence. It would have been covered by the provisions.
The debate on sex establishments is important because essentially it is about justice. It is right to devote a little time to thinking carefully about the provision. The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) for raising the issue. We might have preferred to gallop on and get through our business rapidly, but that is not the way that the House should conduct itself. It is proper that such a matter be aired. We have had an interesting debate.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Newark explained his view clearly, I can claim that the general view on both sides of the House is in support of the Government's position. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), and the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) have come to the view that the Lords amendments are right. That is important.
The ways in which hon. Members have expressed their views are valuable. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North gave an account, which has been reiterated, of the way in which sex shop owners would have been prepared to use an appeals system to frustrate the intentions of the legislation. It has done no harm to have a clear picture of that.
Contributions from hon. Members with legal qualifications have added to the value of the debate. I left out of the list of hon. Members who contributed the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
The essence of the argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark was that the proposition is against natural justice and that there should always be a right of appeal. I do not think that there is such a right in all other circumstances, but I understand why my hon. Friend argues in that fashion. I accept that we should be careful about forgoing an appeal right. Like the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Halifax, I believe that the Government should think about it again from time to time. We should take care to ensure that the results of our handiwork are examined to ensure that the system is working in an effective and just manner.
The issue hinges on the question who can best judge what is right in a locality. It boils down to the question whether local authorities or the courts are best equipped to make the judgment.
11.45 am
Magistrates usually have the first bite at the appeal cherry. A case could end up at the Crown court, if the appeal process were fully operated. One cannot say that

the Crown court has the best knowledge of local conditions. The Crown court is concerned with the operation of justice.
As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the criteria are discretionary and involve judgment. They are almost subjective in their nature. The criteria involve assessments of an area and of whether a sex shop is suitable in that area. Local feelings should be taken into account. After all, local people have to walk past sex establishments and they see the impact that they have on the community.
The tenor of today's debate is that the decision-making power should lie with the local authority as the representative and guardian of the locality. In the last resort there is a possibility of judicial review. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark perhaps underrated the power of the High Court to review a refusal by a local authority. The matter is not complicated. If it is thought, for example, that the council has acted out of mere prejudice, saying simply, "We do not like sex shops", it is likely to be found to have acted ultra vires and the High Court will overturn that decision if asked to do so.
The council must act within the framework of the law. It cannot act in a wilful and prejudiced way. It must have regard to the criteria in the Bill and make its judgment lawfully. The High Court being in the background is a real safeguard and should not be underrated.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others referred to the nil provision. There has been a little uncertainty about it. The hon. Member said that a nice distinction was entailed. The crucial point to understand is that the local authority making the decision must meet the Bill's criteria for refusal and licensing. That means that it must apply its mind to the circumstances at the time that the application is made. If a local authority has a closed mind, it could be involved in a judicial review.
The nil provision is not a blanket provision that can be decided in advance. I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West that the local authority would be unwise to pass a general resolution stating that there should be no sex shops in Broadstairs or anywhere else. The local authority must consider each application on its merits. If it does not, its decision will be overturned by judicial review, for example because the authority had not considered whether there was a change of circumstances since passing the resolution and also because it is unsafe to define the relevant locality until an application is made. It is important to understand that. It is a reiteration of the principle that we have been trying to advance. Each case must be considered carefully and in the light of the criteria.

Mr. Anderson: Clearly the local authority must consider each application on its merits, although its consideration would be within the framework of a policy that evolves in relation to a defined area. What is more puzzling is whether the general framework should be in respect of a small area or the entire local authority area. The word "locality" is not defined and there may be different interpretations of it.

Mr. Raison: I shall deal with that point in a moment. Provided that the local authority considers each application on its merits and does not take an unreasonable view of the locality in each instance, it could come about that no sex establishments would be allowed in the entire


local authority area. The nil provision makes it clear that it is possible to have no sex establishments in the entire area, but that could be brought about only by considering each application carefully.

Mr. George Cunningham: The Minister used the phrase "the local authority must consider each application on its merits" many times. Is that appropriate? It rather implies that even if the local authority is taking its decision under paragraph 11(3) (c) of schedule 3 instead of (d), it must consider the nature of the application, the particular shop and what will happen there. Under paragraph (c), as long as it examines the position in the relevant locality at that time, it can make a decision not on the merits of the application but on its assessment of the desirability of having any sex shop in the locality, given the nature of the locality.

Mr. Raison: That is a good point. To talk about taking a decision on the merits of the application is the sloppy language of a layman. A lawyer would use the word "criteria". The criteria are set out in the provisions. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman picked me up on that point because I can now make it clear that we are talking about the criteria contained in the provisions.
The locality is not the same as the local authority area. The locality is the part of the area that might be affected by the presence of a sex establishment. In practice, that will not be as wide as the entire local authority area. However, "locality" is more flexible, because, where a sex establishment is proposed on the border of a district, the local authority may take into account part of the neighbouring district as the relevant locality. A locality is an area with a distinctive character where what happens is interrelated. Therefore, it is right to make the assessment on that basis rather than simply on the basis of the boundaries of the local authorities. It is conceivable that the entire local authority area may be a self-contained locality, but that would be unusual. There may also be a local authority area, all the localities of which are held to be unsuitable for the provision of a sex shop.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, although the locality may not be conterminous with a local authority area, it may cross the boundary of another local authority? I made the point about sex shops affecting areas outside the local authority. There may be a school just across the boundary and the local authority would wish to bear that in mind when making a decision about the establishment of a sex shop.

Mr. Raison: That is the point that I just tried to make. Where a sex establishment is proposed on the border of a district, the local authority may take into account part of the neighbouring district as the relevant locality. Blessed and backed by common sense, we are trying to define a locality which, as my hon. Friend said, can cross local authority borders.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. We have difficulties in dealing with such complicated legislation at this stage because we cannot speak twice. Does the Minister feel that it would be permissible for the definition of a relevant locality to be conterminous with a local authority area if the decision was taken under paragraph 11(3)(c), although a common relevant characteristic may be required if it were taking its decision

under paragraph (d)? Under paragraph (c), all that matters is that the local authority considers it inappropriate to have a sex shop in that "area". Therefore, I should have thought that a local authority that took such a decision at the right time in respect of its total area would be all right if it was acting under paragraph 11(3)(c). If there is a doubt about that, the Minister should express it now, so that local authorities can be aware of it when taking their decisions.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman's proposition is probably right. I am sure that I shall have an opportunity today to correct him if I need to. If not, I shall write to him.
In making its judgment, a local authority can look across the border to see how many sex shops there are in the neighbouring district. If the neighbouring local authority does not choose to exercise the powers in the Bill and allows sex shops to proliferate, the local authority may say "There are many sex shops nearby and we do not need any here." That is more or less implicit in what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North.
12 noon
The issue turns on whether it is reasonable to regard a local authority area as the relevant locality. For reasons that I have given, it is unlikely that that will happen. Normally a local authority area will be too large to be regarded as the relevant locality, although it is possible in some circumstances that it will be so regarded.
This has been a useful debate on a complicated issue. We have known it to be complicated as we have seen the proposed legislation emerge. We have responded to a good deal of pressure and the record of our debates shows that we have had to think about these issues more than once. However, I believe that we have arrived at the right solution. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Newark not to express his opposition to the Lords amendment. I hope that he will feel that the answers that I have given broadly meet his case. I acknowledge that when questions of natural justice arise my hon. Friend is right to ensure that the House considers them carefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

CLOSING ORDERS ETC.—PROCEDURE AND APPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 4, line 31, leave out "such an" and insert
"a closing order or such a variation"

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 16.

Mr. Raison: Lords amendment No. 13 is a drafting amendment and Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are minor procedural amendments. Where a district council wishes to serve a document by post on the keeper of take-away premises it must send it in a pre-paid registered letter or by the recorded delivery service. This is to ensure that the keeper receives the document and can avail himself of his right to make representations to the council or to appeal to the magistrates court. I hope that the House will accept that this is reasonable in terms of justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12

GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO BYELAWS

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 12, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 298 of the Public Health Act 1936 or section 253 of the Public Health Act 1875 or any other enactment, a constable may take proceedings in respect of an offence against a byelaw made by a relevant local authority under any enactment without the consent of the Attorney General.
(1A) In subsection (1) above "relevant local authority" means—

(a) a local authority, as defined in section 270 of the Local Government Act 1972; and
(b) any body that was the predecessor of a local authority as so defined."

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is purely a drafting amendment which I hope will receive the approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13

APPLICATION OF PART VIII

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 13, line 33, leave out "and 16" and insert ", 16 and 17"

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 20.

Mr. Raison: The effect of the amendment is to bring clause 17 as well as clause 16 into effect in the area of any local authority which has complied with the requirements of clause 13, and thereby taken powers to require the registration of acupuncturists under clause 14 or tattooists, ear piercers or electrolysists under clause 15. It is purely a drafting amendment that is consequent upon the introduction of clause 17 on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14

ACUPUNCTURE

Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 15, line 14, at end insert
but do not include information about individual people to whom the applicant has given treatment".

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment was requested by the principal acupuncture organisations, which were concerned to preserve the confidentiality of their patients' clinical records.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15

TATTOOING, EAR-PIERCING AND ELECTROLYSIS

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 16, line 18, at end insert
but do not include information about individual people whom the applicant has tattooed or given electrolysis or whose ears he has pierced".

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment bars local authorities from requiring applicants for registration as tattooists, ear piercers and electrolysists to provide particulars of their clients, and is equivalent to Lords amendment No. 21.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 23 agreed to.

Clause 17

POWER TO ENTER PREMISES (ACUPUNCTURE, ETC.)

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 18, line 22, leave out
or that the occupier is temporarily absent,".

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 25.

Mr. Raison: The amendments remove as one of the grounds on which if a justice of the peace is satisfied he may grant a warrant for entry on to registered premises to an authorised officer of the local authority on the ground that the occupier is temporarily absent. Some registered acupuncturists, tattooists, ear piercers and electrolysists are likely to have premises for their professional business which are part of and accessible only through their homes. The Government have accepted that it would be undesirable if local authority officers were to be granted warrants to enter such premises on no other ground than that the occupier was temporarily absent from them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 25 agreed to.

Clause 19

SALE OF FOOD FROM STALLS AND CONTAINERS—PROVISION FOR REGISTRATION

Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 19, line 20, leave out from "shall" to "unless" in line 21 and insert "hawk food".

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 47.

Mr. Raison: Most of the Lords amendments are drafting amendments to improve the presentation of the clause, which is concerned with the sale of food from stalls and containers. Lords amendment No. 34 fulfils an undertaking that we gave on Third Reading to exempt the sale of food at pleasure fairs within the meaning of section 75 of the Public Health Act 1961. Lords amendments Nos. 29, 41 and 42 exempt from the requirement to register street traders and food hawkers.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 49 agreed to.

New Clause A

CONTROL OF ROADSIDE SALES

Lords amendment: No. 50, after Clause 22, insert new Clause A:
A.—The following section shall be inserted after section 147 of the Highways Act 1980

Roadside sales.

147A.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, no person shall, for the purpose of selling anything, or offering or exposing anything for sale, use any stall or similar structure or any container or vehicle, kept or placed on—

(a) the verge of a trunk road or a principal road;
(b) a lay-by on any such road; or
(c) unenclosed land within 15 metres of any part of any such road,

where its presence or its use for that purpose causes or is likely to cause danger on the road or interrupts or is likely to interrupt any user of the road.
(2) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(3) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence.
(4) This section does not apply—

(a) to the sale or offer or exposure for sale of things from or on a vehicle which is used only for the purpose of itinerant trading with the occupiers of premises, or is used only for that purpose and for purposes other than trading;
(b) to the sale or offer or exposure for sale of newspapers;
(c) to anything done at a market in respect of which tolls, stallages or rents are payable; or
(d) to the sale or offer or exposure for sale of anything by way of street trading which has been authorised under Schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 or under any local enactment which makes provision similar to that made by that Schedule either by the person so authorised or by a person acting as assistant to the person so authorised."."

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government have accepted that there is a need to strengthen the powers of control over unacceptable roadside trading. This issue was covered in Committee. The intention of new clause A is to give to local authorities more effective power to remove stalls and vehicles that are frequently used for the sale of refreshment where their presence or use causes, or is likely to cause, danger or interruption to road users. A defence of due diligence is included. This will enable a trader to avoid commission of an offence under the new clause if he shows that when he set up his stall he took all reasonable steps to try to ensure that no danger or interruption, or likely danger or interruption, would result from his activities.
Subsection (3) of the new clause enables district councils to adopt certain powers regarding street trading. Schedule 4 sets out what those powers may be. These include the issuing of licences or consents to street traders. To fit the new clause into the context of the Bill, an exemption has been included in favour of a trader conducting his business under authority from the district council pursuant to schedule 4 or a similar local enactment. Considerations of street safety and matters relevant to the grant of a licence or consent are for the appropriate district council.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 51 and 52 agreed to.

Clause 27

CONTROL OF DEMOLITIONS

Lords amendment: No. 53, in page 28, line 28, after "it" insert "(a)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 61.

Mr. Macfarlane: Lords amendments Nos. 53 and 54 require demolishers to inform statutory undertakers of proposed demolition to enable the undertakers to consider in good time whether their services are likely to be effective and to take appropriate action with the person demolishing the building. There have been accidents in the past when persons have undertaken demolitions without being aware of gas and electricity services on the site and without, therefore, taking adequate precautions. These two amendments are intended to obviate that risk to public safety.
Under the clause as drafted, a £500 penalty can be imposed where the person carrying out the demolition has failed to notify the local authority of his intention to demolish. However, it does not cover the situation in which, even if such notification may have been given, demolition has begun before the local authority has served a notice containing conditions, or before the relevant period as defined has expired within which such a local authority notice may be served. It is considered important that there should be a penalty on persons who commence demolition in such cases and amendment No. 55 is designed to remedy that defect.
Amendment No. 56 is purely a drafting amendment.
With regard to amendment No. 57, the clause as drafted allows the local authority to serve a notice containing conditions only on a person who appears to be intending to begin a demolition to which section 29 of the 1961 Act applies, and not on a person who has already begun such a demolition. Amendment No 57 corrects that position by authorising a local authority to serve a notice in both circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 58 to 61 clarify that the requirements of section 29B(1) and (2)—to carry out work or break open any street to comply with a local authority notice—do not override or affect other statutory requirements relating to gas, electricity or water services or a demolisher's possible criminal or civil liability for damage to statutory undertakers' apparatus.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 61 agreed to.

Clause 28

PROTECTION OF DAMAGED BUILDINGS

Lords amendment: No. 62, in page 32, line 45, at end insert—
(2A) In this section and sections B and D 'building' includes structure.
(2B) Subject to subsection (2C) below, in this section, the sections mentioned in subsection (2A) above and section C below `'local authority' means a district council, a London borough council and the Common Council of the City of London.
(2C) This section and the other sections mentioned in subsection (2B) above shall have effect, in relation to a building in respect of which—

(a) an undertaking that it shall not be used for human habitation is in force by virtue of section 16(4) of the Housing Act 1957 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980; or


(b) a closing order is in force by virtue of section 17, 26 or 35 of the Housing Act 1957, section 26 of the Housing Act 1961 or paragraph 6 of Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980,

and which is situated in an area which in pursuance of section 40 of the Housing Act 1969 or section 49 of the Housing Act 1974 is for the time being declared by the Greater London Council to be a general improvement area or a housing action area, as if for the words 'the local authority', in each place where they occur, there were substituted the words 'the Greater London Council'.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendments Nos. 63 to 76.

Mr. Macfarlane: Amendment No. 67 confers on local authorities power to enter buildings and particular land to undertake works under the clause. It is thought right that the power should not extend to occupied land that is not appurtenant to the building in question. It is considered that the power is essential for the clause to be effective.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 enable the local authority to recover its expenses for work undertaken on the operational land of the British Railways Board and statutory undertakers.
Amendment No. 71 enables the authority to recover its expenses where work has been undertaken in connection with houses subject to Housing Act closing orders or undertakings. The clause as introduced in the other place restated the existing position in section 8 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and did not enable the authority to recover its expenses in such circumstances. It was because authorities could not recover their expenses that they were given the power to take speedy action in Housing Act cases with no right of appeal for the owner. However, amendments Nos. 75 and 76 give owners a right of appeal against the authority's notice of proposed works, or against a demand for costs where no notice is given. This effectively removes any objections, on those grounds, to the local authority being able to recover its costs.
Amendment No. 72 makes it clear that the local authority's expenses under the clause are recoverable as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction; it also clarifies the court procedure in such circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 62 to 66, 68 and 73 are drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 62 and 73 deal with the definitions of the local authorities that are to be empowered to undertake works under the clause. In relation to the Greater London Council, the council's powers are confined as at present to certain buildings, for example, in relation to which a closing order has been made, in areas declared to be a housing action area or a general improvement area by that council.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 63 to 76 agreed to.

Clause 29

ENFORCEABILITY BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF CERTAIN CONVENANTS RELATING TO LAND

Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 34, line 6, leave out "become" and insert "are".

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 78 to 81.

Mr. Macfarlane: Amendment No. 79 puts an obligation on the local authority, if so requested, to provide free of charge a copy of any enforceable covenant to persons against whom the covenant may be enforced, where they were not party to the covenant when it was entered into.
Amendment No. 80 provides for the omission of subsection (5). That subsection is unnecessary since section 1(1)(d) of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 deals with the matter.
Amendment No. 81 provides for section 126 of the Housing Act 1974—which is superseded by the clause—to cease to have effect and, in consequence of amendment No. 80, ensures that covenants falling within section 126(2) will continue to be registered as local land charges.
Since clause 29 replaces section 126 of the 1974 Act, amendment No. 78 is necessary to ensure the continued enforceability of covenants to which section 126 applies.
Amendment No. 77 is consequential on amendment No. 78.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 81 agreed to.

New Clause E

ACQUISITION OF LAND ETC. BY PLANNING BOARDS

Lords amendment: No. 82, after clause 30, insert new clause E:
E.—In section 119 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "The Peak Park Joint Planning Board and the Lake District Special Planning Board" there shall be substituted the words "A board constituted in pursuance of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or reconstituted in pursuance of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972";
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "The Boards" there shall be substituted the words "Any such board";
(c) in subsection (3), for the words "the Boards were local authorities" there shall be substituted the words "any such board were a local authority"; and
(d) the following subsection shall be added after that subsection—

(4) On being authorised to do so by the Secretary of State any such board shall have, for any purpose for which by virtue of this section they may acquire land compulsorily, the power to purchase compulsorily rights over land not in existence when their compulsory purchase is authorised which section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 confers on the local authorities to whom subsection (1) of that section applies, and subsections (2) to (5) of that section shall accordingly apply to the purchase of rights under this subsection as they apply to the purchase of rights under the said subsection (1).".

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
New clause E amends section 119 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, in two ways.
Section 119 confers various powers directly on two planning boards: the Lake District special planning board and the Peak park joint planning board. The two boards were reconstituted under schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972. Section 119 as enacted did not take account of the possibility that more planning boards could be established under section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The first thing which the new clause does, therefore, is to amend section 119 to remedy that omission.
The powers conferred on planning boards by section 119 relate to the compulsory acquisition of land. As enacted, the section did not confer on the boards the power to acquire compulsorily new rights over land under section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
The second thing that the new clause does, therefore, is to amend section 119 by the addition of a new subsection (4), which confers such power on planning boards.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31

CONTROL OF FLY-POSTING

Lords amendment: No. 83, in page 37, line 24, at beginning insert
Subject to subsection (3A) of this section,".

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 84.

Mr. Macfarlane: The purpose of these two minor amendments to clause 31 is to introduce into the new section 109A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 a new subsection (3A), which has the effect of modifying the obligation on a district council to give advance notice of its intention to remove or obliterate an illegal placard or poster in cases where it cannot readily find out where the person responsible for displaying it lives or works. The council's obligation is now to be limited so that it is entitled to proceed to remove or obliterate the illegal "fly-posting", without giving advance warning, when "reasonable inquiry" fails to establish the whereabouts of the person who should be notified. This is a sensible relaxation of what might otherwise be a somewhat onerous responsibility for district councils to discharge. It has been introduced following consideration of comments made in Committee in the other place, largely at the instance of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 84 to 87 agreed to.

New Clause F

WORK UNDERTAKEN BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND DEVELOMENT BODIES UNDER CERTAIN AGREEMENTS WITH MANPOWER SERVICES COMMISSION

Lords amendment: No. 88, after clause 32, insert new clause F:
F.—(1) The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 20 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—

'(4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, in this Act "construction or maintenance work" does not include work undertaken by a local authority or a development body pursuant to an agreement made with the Manpower Services Commission on or after 1st April 1982 which specifies the work to be undertaken by the authority or body and under which the Commission has agreed to pay the whole or part of the cost of the work so specified.'.
(2) The words ('to (4)') shall accordingly be substituted for the words 'and (3)' in the definition of 'construction or maintenance work' in subsection (1) of that section.
(3) This section extends to Scotland.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a substantial amendment. The object of new clause F is both straightforward and beneficial. It excludes from the regulatory provisions of the general legislation of local authority direct labour organisations in part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 work undertaken by local authorities in relation to certain agreements with the Manpower Services Commission. Employees engaged in such work on or after 1 April 1982 will not count towards the total of employees engaged on construction or maintenance work for the purpose of the exemption from the DLO legislation contained in section 21 of the 1980 Act for authorities employing 30 or fewer persons on such work.
The beneficiaries will be a number of authorities with small direct labour organisations which will be exempt from the DLO legislation in 1983–84. Without such provision an authority could be caught by a technicality, if the number of employees engaged on MSC-sponsored schemes between 1 April 1982 and the date of Royal Assent pushed its total over 30 at some time during the 1982–83 financial year. The new clause will extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
The DLO legislation is designed to impose effective controls on local authority construction and maintenance work. It requires councils: first, to compete with private contractors for a proportion of their work, rather than letting their own employees undertake it; secondly, to achieve a prescribed rate of return on the capital that they employ; and, thirdly, to meet various accounting requirements.
Manpower Services Commission schemes are entirely different. They consist of work which would not otherwise be undertaken by an authority. No purpose would be served in requiring an authority to earn a rate of return or to go out to competition with contractors for such MSC-sponsored work. Both local authority and building contractors' representatives agree that these schemes are irrelevant to the direct labour organisation legislation and should be specifically excluded from it. Local authorities may otherwise be deterred from taking on adult MSC community enterprise programme employees and contractors will see no purpose in tendering for schemes which the authority itself must undertake if it is to take on these employees.
The new clause was not precedented in local authority Acts passed since April 1974. It was therefore with some reluctance that the Government put this down in another place for inclusion in the Bill. It was felt, however, that the amendment was of a minor nature, but very important in effect. Without it, we understand that local authorities might have been reluctant to take on CEP employees. We


think that the new clause will remove any possible deterrent and will certainly help to maintain the impetus of Manpower Services Commission schemes. I understand that it will be warmly welcomed by both local authorities and building contractors. I hope that it will also be welcomed by the Opposition.

Dr. David Clark: This is the new clause to which I referred earlier. We welcome it so far as it goes. I was taken by the fact that the Minister admitted that the Government were somewhat reluctant to introduce it in another place in the first instance. We accept that it is sensible to remove the restriction on the MSC, but in our view the proposal does not go far enough. The Minister argues that the MSC should be excluded because in a sense it represents a specific type of project which, but for the MSC, would not be undertaken. We believe that the same argument should apply to all direct labour organisations.
I speak with particular reference to the training of apprentices. As the Minister knows, there has been a great decrease in the training of apprentices in many direct works departments. I cite just a few examples. In Leeds city, between 1980 and 1982, the number of apprentices has fallen from 126 to 21. In Sunderland the number has fallen from 120 to 10. In Gateshead it has been cut by about half, and in the city of Manchester it has fallen from 164 to 39. In my own borough of South Tyneside, there were 700 applicants for 12 vacancies this year. The whole apprentice recruitment system in the direct works departments of local authorities has fallen apart. Unless action is taken, there will be a dire shortage of skilled labour in the future.
In the same way as the Minister excludes the MSC schemes because the work would not be done otherwise, we argue that apprentices in direct works departments should be the subject of exceptional aid because the training is not being undertaken elsewhere. In many industrial conurbations, if training is not done by the local authority, it is not done at all. That is a matter of great concern to us.
As the Minister knows, in the past direct labour organisations were allowed to charge certain appren-ticeship costs against a central fund. Under the new tendering system, however, the whole cost of training and education must be included in the costs of the direct labour organisation. We believe that that is unfair and regressive and that the Government should have extended this provision to include direct labour organisations as well as the MSC.
Therefore, although I welcome the proposal, I hope that the Minister will promise to keep an eye on this and, if possible, try to do something about this pressing problem in the very near future.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and his broad welcome for the amendment, although he made it clear that in his opinion it did not go far enough. Everybody has anxieties. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and other Ministers have noted the Opposition's view that exemption should be extended to apprenticeship training and the costs included more generally.
My right hon. Friend wishes training programmes to be maintained in the construction industry, but he does not believe that it would be right to exclude apprenticeship

training costs from direct labour organisation accounts. Unlike the costs of MSC-sponsored trainees or employees, apprentice training costs are an integral part of the costs that must be borne by contracting firms and by any organisation carrying out construction or maintenance work. As such, we believe that it would be wrong to treat this as something for which DLOs should not make allowance in their accounts.
My right hon. Friend has, however, already suggested that any authority which believes that, for social or other reasons, it has incurred apprentice training cost over and above those related to DLO needs should identify these, as agreed with its auditor, as a special item in its accounts so that the impact on the rate of return achieved by the authority on DLO activities can be properly assessed. My right hon. Friend believes that that is the proper, flexible way to deal with any problems, if problems there be. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I hope that on balance he will agree that we are mindful of the difficulties and that the Lords amendments should be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause G

INSURANCE ETC. OF LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBERS AND PERSONS VOLUNTARILY ASSISTING LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND PROBATIONS COMMITTEES

Lords amendment: No. 89, after the words last inserted, insert new Clause G:
G.—(1) In section 140 of the Local Government Act 1972 (insurance by local authorities against accidents to members)—
(a) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
(1) A local authority may enter into a contract of insurance of Class I in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Companies Act 1981 against risks of any member of the authority meeting with a personal accident, whether fatal or not, while engaged on the business of the authority."; and
(b) the words in subsection (3) from "but" to the end shall cease to have effect.
(2) The following sections shall be inserted after that section—

Insurance of voluntary assistants of local authorities

140A.—(1) A local authority may enter into a contract of insurance of a relevant class against risks of any voluntary assistant of the authority meeting with a personal accident, whether fatal or not, while engaged as such, or suffering from any disease or sickness, whether fatal or not, as the result of being so engaged.
(2) In this section—
local authority" includes—
(a) a board constituted in pursuance of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or reconstituted in pursuance of Schedule 17 to this Act;
(b) the Common Council of the City of London;
and
(c) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
and
voluntary assistant" means a person who, at the request of the local authority or an authorised officer of the local authority, performs any service or does anything otherwise than for payment by the local authority (except by way of reimbursement of expenses), for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of any of the functions of the local authority.

Insurance of voluntary assistants of probation committees

140B.—(1) A county council and the Greater London Council may enter into a contract of insurance of a relevant class against risks of any voluntary assistant of a relevant


probation committee meeting with a personal accident, whether fatal or not, while engaged as such, or suffering from any disease or sickness, whether fatal or not, as the result of being so engaged.
(2) In this section—
relevant probation committee" means—
(a) in relation to a county council, a probation committee for a probation area wholly or partly within the county; and
(b) in relation to Greater London, a probation committee for a probation area wholly or partly within an outer London borough (within the meaning of section 1 of the 1963 Act);
and
voluntary assistant" means a person who, at the request of an authorised officer of the probation committee, performs any service or does anything otherwise than for payment by the committee (except by way of reimbursement of expenses), for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of any of the functions of the committee.

Provisions supplementary to sections 140A and 140B

140C.—(1) The relevant classes of contracts of insurance for the purposes of sections 140A and 140B above are—

(a) class IV in Schedule 1 to the Insurance Companies Act 1981 (permanent health insurance); and
(b) class I in Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act (accident insurance).

(2) Any sum received under a contract of insurance made by virtue of section 140A or 140B above shall, after deduction of any expenses incurred in the recovery thereof, be paid by the authority receiving it to, or to the personal representatives of, the voluntary assistant who suffered the accident, disease or sickness in respect of which the sum is received or to such other person as the authority consider appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case; and a sum paid to any person other than the assistant or his personal representatives shall be applied by that person in accordance with any directions given by the authority for the benefit of any dependant of the voluntary assistant.
(3) The provisions of the Life Assurance Act 1774 shall not apply to any such contract.
(4) Section 119 above shall apply to any sum which is due by virtue of subsection (2) above and does not exceed the amount for the time being specified in section 119(1) above.".
(3) In the entry relating to Class I in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Companies Act 1981, after the words "the person insured" there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of a contract made by virtue of section 140, 140A or 140B of the Local Government Act 1972, a person for whose benefit the contract is made"."

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 91.

Mr. Macfarlane: The new clause replaces clause 33 and makes two substantial changes to the Local Government Act 1972. The first is to section 140 which deals with the insurance by local authorities of their members against personal accidents. When that section came into operation in 1974, the law relating to insurance companies was embodied in the Insurance Companies Act 1958. Since then, there have been two changes in the law relating to such companies. The first was contained in the Insurance Companies Act 1974 and the second in the Insurance Companies Act 1981. The latter specifies that only certain authorised insurers may undertake specified classes of insurance. The new clause amends section 140 of the Local Government Act 1972 to conform with the new scheme in the Insurance Companies Act 1981, but makes no changes to the powers of a local authority in relation to the insurance of its members.
The second change deals with the insurance of probation service volunteers by county councils and the

Greater London Council in relation to that area of Greater London comprised in the outer London boroughs. An undertaking was given in the other place to consider a proposal that local authorities should be empowered to provide accident and disability insurance for such volunteers.
Section 140B arose from that undertaking and enables insurance cover for such volunteers to be provided by local authorities who are empowered by section 140A to insure their own voluntary assistants. Because the inner London probation service is financed out of the funds of the Metropolitan Police it was not possible to bring their volunteers within this legislation, but the new provision will enable insurance cover to be provided to 90 per cent. of probation service volunteers at minimal cost by those councils which make financial contributions to the cost of the probation service.
As a result of the introduction of section 140B into the 1972 Act, drafting changes have been necessary to section 140A and new section 140C has been included which contains provisions common to both section l4OA and 140B.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause H

NUISANCE AND DISTURBANCE ON EDUCATIONAL PREMISES

Lords amendment: No. 90, after the words last inserted, insert new clause H:
H.—(l) Any person who without lawful authority is present on the premises to which this section applies and causes or permits nuisance or disturbance to the annoyance of persons who lawfully use those premises (whether or not any such persons are present at the time) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
(2) This section applies to premises, including playgrounds, playing fields and other premises for outdoor recreation—

(a) of a school maintained by a local education authority; or
(b) of a further education establishment provided by such an authority.

(3) If—

(a) a police constable; or
(b) subject to subsection (5) below, a person whom a local education authority have authorised to exercise the power conferred by this subsection,

has reasonable cause to suspect that any person is committing or has committed an offence under this section, he may remove him from the premises.
(4) The power conferred by subsection (3) above may also be exercised, in relation to premises of an aided or special agreement school, by a person whom the school governors have authorised to exercise it.
(5) A local education authority may not authorise a person to exercise the power conferred by subsection (3) above in relation to premises of a voluntary school without first obtaining the consent of the school governors.
(6) Except as provided by subsection (7) below, no proceedings under this section shall be brought by any person other than—

(a) a police constable; or
(b) subject to subsection (8) below, a local education authority.

(7) Proceedings under this section for an offence committed on premises of an aided or special agreement school may be brought by a person whom the school governors have authorised to bring such proceedings.
(8) A local education authority may not bring proceedings under this section for an offence committed on premises of a voluntary school without first obtaining the consent of the school governors.
(9) Expressions used in this section and in the Education Act 1944 have the meanings assigned to them by that Act.
(10) This section shall come into force on the expiry of the period of two months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed."

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment, moved on Third Reading in the other place by Baroness David, represents the outcome of considerable debate in Committee and on Report about the best methods of dealing with the recognised problem of nuisance and disturbance that may be created on school premises by the anti-social behaviour of people not authorised to be there. This may take several forms. In rural areas, the problem may be one of people exercising horses and dogs on school playing fields which results in the digging up of turf. In urban areas, trouble is more likely to be caused by groups of youths making a noise and disturbing evening classes. Local authorities are increasingly anxious to promote the use of school facilities by the wider community so far as this is possible without detracting from the first claim on the facilities by the schools themselves.
Subsection (1) makes it an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £50 for a person who is present without lawful authority on educational premises covered by the section to cause or permit nuisance or disturbance to the annoyance of persons lawfully using the premises. Subsection (2) defines the premises covered by the section and subsection (3) provides power of removal from the premises exercisable by a police constable or a person authorised by the local education authority, or, in the case of an aided or special agreement school, by the school governors.
The clause is intended to deal with only relatively minor problems. For more serious offences, the general criminal law will be available. The Government were initially hesitant to take on board a provision dealing with imprecise concepts such as nuisance and disturbance, but we recognise that there is a problem for local authorities. We see the creation of this relatively minor offence as a means of giving local authorities the power to deal with the problem. The police and representatives of voluntary schools are also content.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 91 agreed to.

Clause 34

LOST AND UNCOLLECTED PROPERTY

Lords amendment: No. 92, in page 41, line 5, leave out "such"

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 93 to 103.

Mr. Macfarlane: Amendment No. 93 extinguishes any rights of the finders of lost property. The clause is intended to confer on a local authority a clear and uncontroversial title to lost property found on local authority premises and taken into the authority's custody.

It would defeat the object of the clause if doubt were to exist as to whether the clause was subject, or without prejudice to, the rule of law relating to finder's rights. The amendment will avoid the possibility of any such doubt arising.
Amendments Nos. 95 and 100 take account of circumstances where trespassing animals come into the possession of the local authority. Amendment No. 102 extends, at its request, the clause to the Common Council of the City of London. Amendments Nos. 92, 94, 96 to 99, 101 and 103 are all drafting amendments. In particular, amendment No. 101 clarifies the reference that the clause makes to planning boards. It ensures that the clause will be exerciseable by any new planning board that might be constituted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in the future as well as by the two existing boards, the Lake District special planning board and the Peak park joint planning board.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 93 to 103 agreed to.

New Clause I

PORT HEALTH DISTRICTS AND PORT HEALTH AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 104, after clause 34 insert new clause I:
I.—(1) In section 2(2) of the Public Health Act 1936 (constitution of port health district under port health authority)—

(a) for the words "(i) constitute a port health district consisting of there whole or part of a port" the shall be substituted the words "constitute a port health district consisting of any area, being a port or part of a port, or of two or more such areas, or consisting of such an area or two or more such areas together with so much (being either the whole or any part or parts) of the district or districts of one or more riparian authorities as (not being comprised in that area or any of those areas, as the case may be) is specified in the order"; and
(b) paragraph (ii) shall be omitted.

(2) In section 3(1)(a) of that Act (which specifies the waters and land over which a port health authority is to have jurisdiction) for the words from "waters" to "so specified" there shall be substituted the words "waters and land within the port health district".
(3) In section 41 of the London Government Act 1963 (port health authority for the Port of London)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the words "Port of London" there shall be inserted the words "together with so much (being either the whole or any part or parts) of the district or districts of one or more riparian authorities as (not being comprised in the Port of London) may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State";
(b) in paragraph (a) of that subsection, for the words from "waters" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "waters and land within that port health district";
(c) in paragraph (c) of that subsection, for the words from "mentioned in paragraph (a)" to "so mentioned" there shall be substituted the words "and land within that port health district"; and
(d) at the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection: —

(4) In this section "riparian authority" means a riparian authority within the meaning of Part I of the Public Health Act 1936 as amended by subsection (3) of this section.".
(4) The amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) above shall not affect the validity of any order made under section 2(2) of the Public Health Act 1936, or under section 41 of the London Government Act 1963, before the passing of this Act; but the


power conferred by section 9(2) of the said Act of 1936, or by section 90 of the said Act of 1963, to amend or vary orders shall include power to amend or vary any order so made so as to have effect in accordance with the provisions of the Act in question as amended by this section."

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is designed to effect two administrative improvements. The Secretary of State will be able to constitute one "riparian authority" port health authority for a port health district comprising the whole or part of one or more "customs port" instead of a joint board as hitherto. Secondly, the amendment clarifies that, in order to carry out their functions, port health authorities have jurisdiction over parts of the district of the riparian authorities. The amendment will ensure that the whole of the area over which the port health authority has jurisdiction will be the defined port health district.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause J

ADVANCES FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND, ERECTION OF BUILDINGS OR CARRYING OUT OF WORKS

Lords Amendment: No. 105, after the words last inserted, insert new clause J—

"J. In section 3 of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963—

(a) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1) —

"(1) Where a local authority are satisfied that it would be for the benefit or improvement of their area, they may, subject to the provisions of this section, advance money to any person for the purpose of enabling him—

(a) to acquire land; or

(b) to erect any building or carry out any work on land."; and

(b) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (3) —

"(3) The amount of the principal of an advance made under subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not exceed nine-tenths of the value of the land.

(3A) The amount of the principal of an advance made under subsection (1)(b) of this section shall not exceed nine-tenths of the value which it is estimated the mortgaged security will bear upon the completion of the building or other works in respect of which the advance is made".")

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would inform the House that privilege is involved in this amendment. With this we may take Lords amendments No. 106 to 108.

Mr. Macfarlane: It may assist the House if I explain, as these amendments are fairly lengthy, that doubts have recently been expressed about the powers of local authorities to assist industry and about the extent of those powers. Some authorities have local Act powers but many have made use of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 which is a general power available when there is no express power for authorities to incur expenditure in the interests of their area or its inhabitants. Authorities have relied on that power to enable them to participate in the urban development programme and the youth opportunities and community programmes of the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment. It is vital that local authorities' participation in those programmes should not be jeopardised.
In March this year we put forward proposals for a new specific power for local authorities to assist small firms. That would have enabled them to incur expenditure up to the product of a ½p rate, but except in the case of authorities designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 they would not have been able to use the general power under section 137 in addition. The response to consultation on the proposal revealed wide differences of opinion within local government about what was required. After careful consideration we decided that the right course was to table amendments in another place dealing with those matters on which there was a good measure of agreement. Those amendments are now before the House for consideration. I will go through them in order.
New clause J forms amendment No. 105 and amends the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. It will enable local authorities to make loans to any person to buy or lease any land or carry out works on land when it is in the interests of the authority's area to do so. It enables local authorities to advance loans of up to 90 per cent. of the mortgaged value of relevant land, or land and buildings, instead of 75 per cent. as at present.
New clause K forms amendment No. 106. It makes clear that section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 may be used to assist industry or commerce by means of loans, guarantees or grants. The Government's view is that the section already covers such assistance. We are advised that the clause adds nothing to the section as it stands.
However, some authorities have doubts about their powers. We felt it right to remove any possibility of doubt by this clarifying provision. The clause does not affect the responsibility that rests on local authorities to apply proper accounting procedures especially in the case of guarantees.
Doubts have recently been expressed about the proper interpretation of the expenditure limit in section 137. The limit is the product of a 2p rate in any financial year. The doubt is whether the limit refers to gross or net expenditure. The new clause makes it clear that in calculating expenditure for the purposes of the limit certain sums may be deducted from the authority's gross expenditure. The most significant item is the expenditure reimbursed by the Government on urban programme projects under the Local Government (Social Need) Act 1969. Other items are listed in the clause and there is power to enable us to deal with other matters in a reasonably flexible way by order should that need arise.
New clause L forms amendment No. 107 and gives local authorities express power to enter into arrangements for funding schemes under the Employment and Training Act 1973, for example, the youth opportunities and the community enterprise programmes. It overcomes two problems. Local authorities have had to rely hitherto on section 137. Thus expenditure on such projects counted against the expenditure limit in the section. There were doubts as to whether section 137 was available when the whole cost was refunded by the Manpower Services Commission or the Department of Employment, and there was, therefore, no expenditure by the local authority. This new power removes both of those difficulties and puts local authorities' participation in those programmes on a firm basis.
New clause M forms amendment No. 108. It extends the operation of certain local enactments. Powers to assist industry in post-1974 local Acts which lapse in 1984, in common with earlier local powers, were due to expire


under the Local Government Act 1972. We have undertaken to defer the deadline until 1986 by order because of the pressure on the parliamentary timetable arising from the number of local authorities' rationalisation Bills still to be introduced. We should not want industry powers in post-1974 Acts to run until only 1984 while others continued until 1986. The new clause provides that they shall run until 1986.
These amendments will help local authorities to assist local firms within the framework of national priorities. It is right that they should be able to do so.
We shall want to keep the matter under review and shall look with interest at the use that local authorities make of the powers. In the light of experience, further clarification of the procedures, especially in respect of assistance by guarantee, may be required. We shall, if necessary, have further consultations with local authority associations about what further steps may be required.

Dr. David Clark: We strongly support the Government amendments. That the Government could even contemplate reducing local authority aid to industry, as they did a few months ago, was almost unthinkable. We welcome their conversion, just as we welcome all repentant sinners.
I am pleased that the Minister is closely to monitor the working of the scheme and, if necessary, further consult and possibly take further action, with a view to local authorities providing more or different forms of help to local industry. Deindustrialisation often involves heavy industry. The small man providing two or three jobs is often most in need of help. Frequently only the local authority is in a position to provide the help.

Mr. Alexander: New clause K was brought forward at the request of local authorities, not least my authority in Newark. It clarifies local authorities' powers to assist industry. It makes clear their powers to give loans, grants and guarantees under section 138 of the principal Act.
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position, but I am not happy about local authorities levying as much as a 2p rate direct to enable them to give financial assistance to industry and commerce. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear one or two caveats in mind.
The 2p rate raised to assist some sections of industry or commerce will have to come from others. It is the same as arguing for more public expenditure; someone has to pay the bill, and it might be a hard-pressed business man. Is the Minister absolutely sure that he is not giving unfair assistance to one section of industry when the struggles of another might be equally harsh but unknown to the authority?
With a 2p rate, there will be the temptation for competitive bidding and tendering. That is regrettable and wasteful and will be an unfair burden on those who have to pay. The temptation may be for local authorities to make judgments on propositions that the market place may not see as viable.
I hope that when my hon. Friend reviews the working of the clause he will bear in mind the Government's consultation paper that proposed to limit the arrangement to a ½p rate and to firms employing not more than 25 people. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the clause is not the final word and that, if it produces any of the results

that I fear, he will review it and consider again the proposals in the consultation paper, including the ½p product limitation?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful for the welcome from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I confirm that the matter will be kept constantly under review.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that the 2p rate is not mandatory. It will be for the local authority to decide, and I have every confidence that local electorates will ensure that councils act wisely and prudently on all forms of expenditure. It is also important that the Government should keep the matter under review and we shall do so.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 108 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 35

MINOR AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 109, in page 43, line 4, leave out "Part I" and insert "Parts I and IA".

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37

CITATION AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 110, in page 43, line 34, after "11(2)" insert", F(3)".

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendment No. 111.

Mr. Macfarlane: These are consequential amendments that take account of the extension of new clause F to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 111 to 198 agreed to.

Schedule 4

STREET TRADING

Lords amendment: No. 199, in page 65, line 8, leave out
held under a grant or presumed grant or
and insert
the right to hold which was acquired by virtue of a grant (including a presumed grant) or acquired or established by virtue of".

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 200 to 204.

Mr. Raison: The amendments effect minor changes to schedule 4. They make two additions to the exemptions from street trading controls where there are, or will be by


virtue of the Bill, alternative statutory controls, and they extend the requirement for consultations with interested corporations before streets are designated under the schedule.
The amendments also increase the height, but not the ground area, of newsvendors' stalls that may be exempted from the street trading controls.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 200 to 204 agreed to.

Schedule 5

HIGHWAY AMENITIES

Lords amendment: No. 205, in page 75, line 18, leave out "and".

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 206 to 214.

Mr. Macfarlane: The purpose of amendment No. 206 is to extend the scope of schedule 5 to walkways created under local Acts. Such walkways—unlike those created in pursuance of section 35 of the Highways Act 1980, to which the schedule already applies—are not necessarily situated over, through or under buildings, or structures attached to buildings, and are not necessarily highways. It is considered desirable that the schedule should also apply to such walkways.
Amendment No. 205 is consequential on amendment No. 206. Amendment No. 207 defines "local Act walkway" for the purpose of amendment No. 206.
Amendment No. 208 is designed partly to improve the drafting of the schedule by transferring the definition of "walkway consent" from clause 115G to clause 115A(2) where it more suitably belongs and partly to provide that the reference to "walkway consent" shall relate to local Act walkways as well as to those walkways defined in section 35(2) of the 1980 Act. The slight differences in the meanings of "walkway consent" as it applies to the two kinds of walkway reflect the somewhat different nature of the two creatures to which I referred when speaking to amendment No. 206.
Amendment No. 213 is consequential on amendment No. 208.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 206 to 214 agreed to.

Schedule 6

MINOR AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 215, in page 82, line 40, at end insert—
In section 48(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (which requires a copy of a certificate to be sent in certain cases to the proper officer of the relevant port health authority constituted in pursuance of section 2 of the Public Health Act 1936) the words "constituted in pursuance of section 2 of the Public Health Act 1936" shall be omitted.

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 216 to 218.

Mr. Raison: The first three are drafting amendments. The last is an integral part of the series of amendments grouped with new clause F and extends the provision to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 216 to 218 agreed to.

Schedule 7

REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 219, in page 84, line 41, at end insert—


"1980 c. 43.
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
In Schedule 6, in Part III, paragraph 2.

PART IA REPEALS IN LOCAL ACTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION I"

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 220 to 225.

Mr. Raison: During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, it was pointed out that many provisions in recent local Acts would be superseded by the provisions of the Bill. It was asked why in those circumstances repeals had been included in schedule 7 only in respect of provisions which corresponded to clause 1 or which were consequential on clause 11. The Government said then that they accepted in principle the need to repeal local Act provisions which were either being replaced by mandatory provisions in the Bill or which modified provisions in public general Acts which were also amended in similar respects by the Bill. We promised that the matter would be discussed with the local authority associations with a view to introducing suitable amendments. Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 fulfil that promise.
The repeals cover only the two limited categories mentioned. Repeals of corresponding local Act provisions have not been included in the Bill where the provisions in the Bill are only adoptive.
Amendments Nos. 219, 220, 223, 224 and 225 are drafting amendments.
As this is the last of our debates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say, as others have, that the idea weeks ago that this would be a wholly and totally non-controversial Bill has not been altogether borne out. There have been arguments about sex shops, fish and chip shops and pop festivals. I believe that we have reached the right outcome, and I thank the House. I also thank my officials, who have worked extremely hard in preparing all the amendments and changes.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 220 to 225 agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker have leave of absence on Friday 9 July to receive an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws from the University of Liverpool.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day — Jobcentre (Thorne)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Dr. Edmund Marshall: The necessity for this debate arises from a reference to Thorne jobcentre, which is in my constituency, in the report of the Rayner scrutiny of the employment services division of the Manpower Services Commission, which was published in May this year.
In part A of annex 12 to the report, Thorne is listed as one of 14 jobcentres which in 1981 incurred a high cost per successful placing of applicants in new jobs. Paragraph 6.30 of the report recommends that the employment services division should consider whether the continued operation of those jobcentres can be justified, or whether the cost of such premises can be reduced by modifying or resiting the centres.
My purpose is to demonstrate why there should continue to be a jobcentre at Thorne. The present premises are well sited on the main road through the town, in the main shopping area, not far from the unemployment benefit office. I saw the premises again for myself only yesterday. I am not aware of any more suitable premises for the centre in Thorne, and any savings which might be gained by moving to new premises would be offset by the cost of relocation.
To understand the necessity for retaining Thorne jobcentre, it is essential to know something of the local geography and economic position. The town of Thorne, which includes the community of Moorends around Thorne colliery, is a free-standing town with a population at the 1981 census of almost exactly 17,000, standing some 11 miles north-east of Doncaster and 10 miles southwest of Goole. It is an old market town with boat building activities associated with the Stainforth and Keadby canal, and it grew considerably in the inter-war years with the development of the colliery at Moorends. But production at that colliery ceased in 1956, since when there has been some industrial diversification locally but not enough to stem the steadily increasing total of unemployed persons living locally to find work, more and more Thorne residents have had to look further afield, to Doncaster and to Scunthorpe. But, in recent years, those sources of new jobs have tended to dry up as the country's economy has declined. A further catastrophic blow to employment opportunities at Thorne came with the closure in the middle of last year of the GEC Machines factory at Thorne itself, causing a further 424 redundancies.
It is not easy to measure the exact size of the unemployment problem at Thorne. Figures are published monthly by the Department of Employment for the whole of the Thorne employment office area, which coincides with the former Thorne rural district, including the civil parishes of Hatfield, Stainforth, Fishlake and Sykehouse, as well as Thorne. For that Thorne rural district, the number of registered unemployed residents rose from 748 in October 1973 to 1,515 in May 1979 and to 3,111 in June 1982. It is significant that the number of my unemployed constitutents in Thorne itself has more than doubled in the three years since the present Government came to power.
When it comes to interpreting these figures in terms of a percentage rate of unemployment at Thorne, the Department is unable to produce such a measure of the

local economic problem on the grounds that Thorne is included in the Doncaster travel-to-work area and unemployment rates can be calculated only for such areas as a whole. This is because, whereas numbers of unemployed persons are totalled according to where they live, figures of employed persons are obtained by the Department according to where they work, so that percentage unemployment rates can be calculated by the Department only for areas which are to a large extent self-contained labour markets, with most employees living and working in the same area.
A year ago, 41 per cent. of working people with homes in the Thorne district worked outside that district, so the Department of Employment is not equipped statistically to state a rate of unemployment for Thorne itself. The reason that as many as 41 per cent. had to travel to work outside the Thorne district is that they could not find work locally. In this way, the very scarcity of employment locally helps prevent the Department measuring the problem accurately.
A more accurate measure of the level of unemployment has come to hand recently in the form of the first returns from the census held in April 1981. Those returns, which I have been able to obtain, relate to local government district wards. The Thome ward coincides with the parish of Thorne, including Moorends. As I have explained, that is a much smaller area than the former Thorne rural district, so the unemployment figures that I cited earlier are not directly comparable with the figures that I have obtained for Thorne parish for the census returns.
However, the accurate facts are that on census night in 1981 there were resident in Thorne parish 5,358 people of working age in full-time employment and 1,143 who were unemployed. That means that 17·58 per cent. of the potential working population living at Thorne were unemployed in April 1981 while the figure for male workers alone was 17·81 per cent. Those figures compare with the percentage rates of unemployment quoted by the Department for the whole Doncaster travel-to-work area in April 1981 of 13·5 per cent. overall and 14·3 per cent for males.
In other words, in April 1981 the unemployment problem in Thorne was about 4 per cent. worse than the average throughout the Doncaster area. Of course, the situation in Thorne has deteriorated sharply since April 1981, particularly with the closure of the GEC factory and its 424 redundancies. The number of unemployed people in the whole Thorne employment office area in April 1981 was 2,359, compared with last months's figure of 3,111, which shows an increase of 31·9 per cent. in 14 months. Applying such an increase to Thorne parish, I obtain a best possible estimate of the present percentage rate of unemployment at Thorne and Moorends as 23·19 per cent. That figure clearly demonstrates the magnitude of the problem in Thorne.
There is no doubt in my mind that the parish of Thorne needs to be designated a development area—like the adjacent Scunthorpe area—so that it can derive some of the benefits that accrue from Government aid to such areas. Recently I exchanged correspondence with Ministers at the Department of Industry and also with the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, whom I am glad to see on the Front Bench. It is clear that nothing less than Thorne's redesignation as a development area will improve local economic prospects. Given the level of unemployment in Thorne it would be completely heartless


for the Government even to consider the suggestion in the Rayner scrutiny report that Thorne jobcentre should be closed.
I ask the Minister to take the earliest opportunity—an opportunity offered by this debate—to make it clear that the Government reject out of hand the suggestion that the jobcentre should cease to operate. The major weakness in the Rayner scrutiny of the employment services division is that it pays scant attention to the employment needs of areas such as Thorne. The tables in annex 12 to the report list the average register size for persons seeking employment at each job centre in 1981, but there is no reference to the percentage that those figures represent of the local working population.
The one criterion listed in part A of the table that appears to have been given most significance in the report is the average cost of a successful job placement. Of course, in an area such as Thorne the average cost is bound to be higher, because of the difficulty of finding placements. That makes the operation of the local jobcentre all the more necessary, not less. Measuring the value of a jobcentre according to how many jobs are filled is to put the cart before the horse. The harder it is to find jobs in an area, the more necessary is a jobcentre there. One does not close hospitals, for instance, because few patients happen to be cured. In such a situation more hospital facilities are needed.
The Rayner scrutiny report is more realistic in what it says about the need for a rural and small towns network of employment services division local offices, beginning in paragraph 6.36 of the report. In particular, I note the sentence in paragraph 6.37(i) which states:
The lack of alternative recruitment mechanisms also means that the impact of Voluntary Registration on levels of jobseekers usage and registration is likely to be less in rural areas than in cities and conurbations".
In many respects the area around Thorne retains rural characteristics, with much farmland and many open, uninhabited spaces. It is an old market town. Up to 1974 the local authority was a rural district council. Furthermore, paragraph 6.37(vi) of the report points out that
the deterioration of public transport facilities in rural areas, and the sharp rise in transport costs over the last 5–10 years, has increased the importance of locating local offices within easy travelling distance of as many unemployed people as possible.".
As part A of annex 12 shows, it is 10 miles from Thorne to the next nearest jobcentre—the one at Goole, which is in a different travel-to-work area. I have known unemployed persons living at Thorne applying for jobs at Goole being unsuccessful chiefly because they did not live in the Goole area.
In the other direction from Thorne it is 11 miles to Doncaster. Daily return fares from the centre of Thorne are 34p by bus and 40p by rail to Doncaster and £1·20 by bus and 92p by rail to Goole. The distances involved are comparable and the great differences in transport costs reflect the public transport policies of the county councils.
As the Rayner scrutiny report makes clear in paragraph 6·37(vi), the employment services division cannot pay the fares of unemployed people visiting a jobcentre other than for official interviews prior to submission to employers.
If Thorne jobcentre ceased to operate, it would be too much to expect the thousands of unemployed in the Thorne district to find their own way to make general inquiries at the jobcentres at Goole or Doncaster. I am told that in an

average week between 600 and 800 callers visit the Thorne jobcentre. The attractive premises, which I saw yesterday, draw people in.
For all these reasons, any decision to close down the jobcentre at Thorne would demonstrate beyond all doubt that the Government could not care less about the welfare of the people of Thorne in my constituency. The Under-Secretary has the opportunity to show that Ministers still have some compassion. He can do that by nipping in the bud here and now the suggestion that Thorne jobcentre should cease to operate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I welcome this debate, and it is right that the House should be debating the issues raised by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). His choice of subject reflects his careful and assiduous concern for the interests of his constituents. It is a concern with which I am well acquainted. From my point of view the debate provides the opportunity to talk not only about Thorne jobcentre but about what is happening in the Manpower Services Commission's employment service and the Government's approach to it.
I was already aware that the hon. Member takes a great interest in the unemployment problems of the Thorne area and especially in the statistics published by my Department about it. He has been in regular correspondence with both my Department and the Department of Industry on the subject and I wrote to him only this week taking up points that he made in a letter to my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Industry.
But today's debate is primarily about Thorne jobcentre and I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the work of that office. I do not wish to bore the House by going over all the information that he has already provided. I wish rather to bring out what seem to be the salient features of the position and to put them in the wider perspective of the jobcentre service as a whole.
Thorne was one of the first jobcentres to be opened in 1973—one of the first to reflect a new concept that there should be an employment service, separate from the payment of unemployment benefit, provided in attractive and accessible premises, often in high street sites. There are now about 800 jobcentres, four-fifths of the offices run by the employment services division of the Manpower Services Commission.
Thorne is a relatively small office with six staff. Last year the average number of unemployed registrants on its books was about 2,740. During the year 406 vacancies were notified to the office and it placed 431 people. Of course, the office dealt with other business than the registering of unemployed people and placing them in vacancies notified by employers work such as that connected with our special programmes for the unemployed, but, as with all jobcentres, its bread and butter work is trying to fill employers' vacancies and trying to find unemployed people normal jobs. One further factor that we must bear in mind is that some of its current work will disappear later in the year as registration at jobcentres ceases to be a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit. While use of the jobcentre may remain high, the unnecessary paper work associated with compulsory registration will go.
The immediate occasion for this debate is the publication of the report of a review of the employment service set-up as part of the programme of scrutinies of Government activities for which Sir Derek Rayner is responsible. The report identifies Thorne as one of a number of offices whose future should be reviewed on the ground that the cost of each placing that it makes is markedly high in comparison with the employment service average. In Thorne's case, the figure is £137 for each placing made by the office as compared with a national average of £80. The review also recommends that some other offices should be reviewed for this and other reasons.
Before I talk about the review more generally, two points are relevant to what the review says about Thorne jobcentre. The first is that, at this stage, this and other recommendations made in the report simply have the status of recommendations. No decisions have yet been taken. The report has yet to be considered in detail by the Manpower Services Commission, which has the responsibility for running the employment service. Moreover, the recommendation in the case of Thorne is simply that there should be a review of its future. It is not a definite recommendation as to what should be done.
The second point is that the measure of performance that has caused Thorne jobcentre to be singled out with some other offices in the report is not a new one that the review team devised. It is one that, from the outset, the commission and the management of the employment service have used as an important factor in taking decisions about new jobcentre projects or making changes in existing arrangements. Of course, it has to be interpreted taking into account regional and local circumstances, but it is an indicator that the management of the service and the Government must take seriously.
I trust that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that regular reviews and scrutinies of the public service activities of the sort that has just been carried out in the employment service are essential to good government. We need to ensure that taxpayers' money is used in the most efficient and cost-effective fashion, and in particular that there is no waste or unnecessary expenditure. We also need to ensure that what is provided by a public service and the resources allocated to it keep in step with the changing requirements. In the case of the employment service, large sums of taxpayers' money are involved. Its various local office services now cost about £150 million a year.
A good deal of the work of the employment service since it was set up as a separate organisation about 10 years ago has been well regarded, but there have been criticisms. It is no secret that the jobcentre programme has attracted adverse comment, particularly in the past few years when constraints on public expenditure generally have necessarily been tight. The Select Committee on Employment has on several occasions raised questions about the scale of expenditure on new jobcentres, particularly when set against other priorities in employment and training. However, it is fair to add that over the past few years the jobcentre programme has continued at a reduced rate with greater emphasis on more modest and economical standards.
On a more general level, labour market conditions are now very different from those prevailing in the early 1970s when the original decisions on the present shape of the

service were taken. Similarly, the role of the service is changing. From this autumn one of the major requirements placed on the employment service will be removed—the registration for employment of all those seeking unemployment benefit. Against that background, the previous Secretary of State for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), suggested, and the Manpower Services Commission agreed, that a further review of the employment service was called for.
The review team consisted of two civil servants with experience of work in the employment service and two people seconded from the private sector of industry and commerce. They were asked—I quote from the scrutiny team's terms of reference which I announced to the House on 8 December—
to examine the organisation, methods of work and deployment of resources of the Employment Service and its relationship with other divisions of the Commission and with other public and private sector providers of similar or related services; to assess in the light of the implications of the introduction of voluntary registration and of the labour market conditions likely to obtain and the technology likely to be available over the next few years, what changes may be required in the general employment service which is provided in the public interest and how that service can be provided most effectively and economically and with maximum value for money, and to make recommendations accordingly".
Naturally, as part of that remit the team looked at questions relating to the size and the disposition of the jobcentre network and the siting and premises costs of jobcentres and other local offices. In broad terms, the report concludes that the modernisation programme should continue, but makes a number of recommendations as to how that can be done more economically than hitherto.
The report also recommends further, more detailed reviews of some parts of the existing network of offices. As far as the future of individual offices is concerned, the review's report makes detailed proposals only as regards siting of local offices in certain conurbations—proposals based on field work carried out by the review team. For the rest, the review does not make firm recommendations for change but rather lists a number of offices that will need to be reviewed by the commission for various reasons. As I have said, these include a number, of which Thorne jobcentre is one, where the cost per placing secured is high.
Others recommended for review are those where the premises costs appear disproportionately high. In addition, the report identifies a number of the smallest local offices and recommends a two-stage review—either immediately or in some cases in 1983–84, after the experience of the introduction of voluntary registration and the likely resulting fall in business volumes. The review makes it clear, however, that the team's overall judgment was that a major closure of rural and small town offices would not be appropriate.
I have already made it clear that no decisions have yet been taken about the future of Thorne jobcentre. Nor will they be, until the commission has had a chance to form an overall view of the scrutiny report on the employment service. Even then, if it is decided to accept the report's recommendations, a decision on the future of this jobcentre will not be taken until the further detailed review recommended has taken place. It is already the practice of the commission to ensure when taking decisions about its local offices that there is an adequate opportunity for those concerned in the localities affected to have their say. I am


sure that in considering the future of individual offices all the relevant considerations will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Minister has said that those in the localities that are affected will have a chance to express their views. Will he bear in mind that when a jobcentre is scheduled for possible closure there will be an effect on the particular location and on the other offices that presumably will have to take on the work that was carried by the office scheduled for closure? I assume that the work presently undertaken at the Thorne office will be transferred to the Doncaster office in my constituency.
Will the Minister bear in mind also that the House should have a chance to express a view on these matters after the MSC has reached its conclusions and before the Government make their decision? Many hon. Members may have constituency interests, but the efficiency of the employment service is something on which we would all have views, especially its effect on the performance and efficiency of the economy overall.

Mr. Morrison: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is in his place. He is a shadow employment Minister and he has a constituency interest. His constituency and that of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) adjoin. There will be an effect on other jobcentres in the area if a jobcentre closes or if an additional office is opened. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his long experience that the employment services division of the Manpower Services Commission will always put things in context rather than treat each

issue on an isolated basis. I am sure that we both want that to continue and I can give him the assurance that it is my view that it should.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the way in which the service is run is of extreme importance. That is how I regard it as the Minister responsible for it. Importance must be attached to how it is run and to how much is spent upon it. I want to ensure that it is run in the most cost—effective fashion. However, I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I was saying that I have no doubt that this will involve not only the important questions of the performance and cost-effectivness of the offices as currently staffed and organised but other issues identified in the report, such as the patterns and cost of transport for job seekers and location of other offices. The hon. Member for Goole raised the subject of transport costs in his remarks.
At this stage, however, I do not wish to prejudge or prejudice the commission's consideration of the report. The commission will be reporting its conclusions in due course to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and he and I will consider its views with great care and attention, not least those on jobcentre siting policy and on the overall extent and shape of the local office network.
I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Goole and other right hon. and hon. Members will continue to take an active interest in the implications for their constituencies of the decisions that are eventually taken. I welcome this, as I welcomed the opportunity provided by this afternoon's debate to discuss the issues involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.